US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I couldn't have found a better way to discrebe the news that Sig Sauer has been chosen as winner of the NGSW contract that this
View attachment 87428
.
.
.
:: takes a drink of something strong::



First that movie is full of crap.
I just erased a rant I started writing here to respond because lord help me I could break the character limit trashing that movie. Instead I will simply point out that the scene from which the meme is cut is the one where the General come up with you the viewers are supposed to conclude is ridiculous. That list being a turret with an automatic cannon, port holes for scouting, amphibious crossing, atgms, firing ports. That seemingly impossible list supposedly started in 1968. A vehicle fitting that list Already existed in 1962. The BMP1.

Second just like the movie this meme is full of half truths and mostly crap.
M4 was originally intended not to replace M16, but to serve as a PDW. Much like the P90. In fact the designation M4 references the M1, M2 and M3 carbines that fought in world war 2-Korea. It was to be lighter than M16A2 but with a ton of carried over parts. Basically a modernized CAR15. But CAR15 got picked up by early Special forces in Vietnam.
[*]So by the 1980s those were worn out Socom and the Army both wanted replacements.
The Army wanted it to be as light as possible and use their 3 round burst mode. Socom wanted full auto and this new weaver rail system. A comprises was reached M4 with a flat top upper and 3 round burst would be the Army’s PDW. M4A1 with a full automatic mode, and pencil barrel would be the M4A1. Adopted 1994
[*] By 1997 the Army had taken a liking to the flat top upper and was looking to port it onto the M16A2 creating the M16A4.
[*]In 1999 the USMC starts drafting what will become the IAR. The army wanted more starting the OICW XM29 as far back as 1997 and spiraling off the XM8 in 2002.
[*]2004 Socom realized that they made a mistake in the M4A1 compromise. The barrel it used was fine as a PDW but Socom in break action drills shot out the barrels. The Leading to SCAR L and SCAR H. It’s also
When XM29 was canceled.
The XM8 program falls apart in 2005. I couldn’t list all the political reasons but the main practical issues being as long as it fires the same ammunition it is pretty much the same weight as M4 and has the same limitations on range.
Around that time the Marines issue the solicitation for the IAR.
The army and marines keep using M16A2 and M16A4.
[*]2008 the Army decides to switch to… M4 as it’s main issue rifle.
[*]2009 Socom Drops SCAR L and adopted a modified M4A1 with heavier barrel.
[*]in 2010 when the Army follows Socom in adopting a heavier profile barrel making M4A1 its standard issue. Around that time the USMC awards HK the IAR for the M27. The “Individual Carbine” program is launched.
[*]2013 Individual carbine is canceled as the rifles trialed don’t last any longer or offer better performance than M4A1 with the M855A1 round.
[*]2017 The last of the OICW program is killed the XM25 the Grenade launcher portion of the XM29. The Marines announce M27 as their primary infantry rifle. China and Russia are becoming concerns as Afghanistan and Iraq near the end. Congress wants to know the Army’s ability vs body armor. For a hot minute the US Army launches the Interim Combat Service rifle in 7.62x51mm this is as the 5.56x45mm round is stated as not able even with a tungsten penetrator of penetration vs modern armor. ICSR would in theory have been issued to infantry formations as a gap filler. It’s doesn’t last a month. The Army was already programming up for NGSW.
That’s the history.
So FAQ
why are the bullets larger?
Answer Body armor and range. The NGSW could have gotten range by a number of exotic intermediate caliber rounds like 6mm ARC for example but potential barrier penetration would be low.

Only 20 rounds?
20 rounds thus far for the XM5. The magazine used in the trials was a Lancer 20 round SR25 magazine. It comes in 20 round it was also used by the RM277 that lost. Other magazines are available with larger capacity the Magpul 25 round PMAG for example.
3767A601-AEBB-4300-B5C4-532F3D62CCF0.png
The XM250 is belt feed.

Are they heavier?
XM5 is 2 pounds heavier than the Gun it will be serving along side. XM250 is a third lighter then M249. The ammunition used is 20% lighter vs a conventionally cased equivalent.

Silencers really? Army don’t need those that’s for ninjas!
Yes welcome to the 21st century! We hope you enjoy your stay. The line that sound suppressors are for SOF only is about as dated an idea as horse cavalry. The US Army and USMC have at this point deployed thousands of moderators on M4, M27, M110, M2010, Mk22, M107, and more not to SOF but infantry and reconnaissance units. Unlike Hollywood movies, No Sound suppressors are not mouse fart quiet. They are still loud but the other advantages come into play including reduced flash and somewhat safer hearing.

What about that Computer scope?
It’s got a ballistic calculator and weather sensors. But no it doesn’t need software updates and can be operated without power. The scope is a 1-8 LPVO with these features added as a secondary augmentation. Again welcome to the 21st Fing Century!! soldiers carry smart devices and sensors all the Fing time. Including but not limited to Night/thermal fused sensors, radios, GPS, weather sensors, anti sniper systems, drones, computers and so so much more. Modern technology has reach levels where it’s it reliable and resilient enough to take the Job.

It’s fitting that this meme ends like it does and was created using the Pentagon wars. As Col James Burton USAF a card carrying member of the fighter mafia reformers and whom inspired the film was is a technophobe. He pitched the Blitz fighter a weapon that eschewed all modern technology of the then 1970s no radar, no IR, no cameras lucky if it had a radio. in favor of a so called tank buster that looked like a relic of WW2. A twin jet armed with 30mm gun that was to be flown by wire and hydraulics with the aim of killing Soviet tanks in strafing runs. And no it came after A10 it was his pitch at a replacement.
 

Lethe

Captain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Not much in the way of surprises. Reaffirms desire to retire all in-service Freedom-class LCS immediately and intent to retire all Ticonderoga cruisers by end FY2027. It also lists DDG-51 USS Arleigh Burke on the retirement list for FY2027, heralding (by inference) the retirement of all Flight I and Flight II Burkes by end FY2034.

It shouldn't be at all controversial that the older Burkes are going to start disappearing as soon as the Ticos are gone but, given the difficulties USN has had with Congress regarding the latter, it still seems politically courageous to actually put those plans on paper. Colour me skeptical regarding the long-term future of those six Freedom-class vessels that are yet to enter service and said to be retained going forward also.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
At USN's current shipbuilding cost inflation, it will be down to the 11 super carriers and nothing else by 2050. lol

Seriously, some of these shipbuilding plans are so ludicrously unrealistic.

The latest trick is to retire platforms that are jointly used by other services.
 

Lethe

Captain
At the root of the problem is a mismatch between requirements (i.e. what USN/DoD have determined the requirements to be) and the budgets allocated to meet the requirements. Congress seems to think you can just keep adding new ships (Burke III, Constellation, LCS) without retiring older ones and without significant increases to the budget. The blunt message from USN needs to be that, if you want us to keep these older ships, then Congress needs to allocate a lot more funding. I say "a lot more" because just "a little more" funding is going to be swallowed up on personnel, readiness and R&D.

USN knows they don't have the personnel to crew all these ships that Congress wants them to keep, nor the missiles to occupy all the VLS cells that folks are fretting about losing. If USN is forced to maintain the cruisers, older Burkes and LCS in service going forward, their future is to lie fallow in true post-Soviet style with minimal upkeep. While contributing nothing to the capabilities of the fleet, the ongoing maintenance costs for these vessels will continue to reduce funds available for improving readiness and investment in future capabilities.

Congress also likes to talk of a near-term "China threat" to emphasize the value of retaining existing capabilities. This is misleading as there is a lot more to readiness than simply how much old hardware you have lying around (ask the Russians!). A second blunt message to Congress should be to the effect that USN is a lot more concerned about its ability to confront China in 2040 than it is about 2030 (where it will still enjoy considerable overmatch across most domains).

From a "pro-China" perspective, folks should be hoping that Congress mandates that USN keep the Ticos, Burke I, LCS, etc. until the heat death of the universe while maintaining flat budgets. The increasingly hollow and backward-looking force would do more to undermine USN's ability to confront China in the medium- and long-term than anything since the LCS/Zumwalt/Ford debacles. But the number of "battle force ships" would go up, and that's apparently all that matters.

(Regular readers will note that the cost of sustaining a large force is one of the reasons I am less sanguine than many others about PLAN's ability to field more and more and more of absolutely everything. )
 
Last edited:

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
If the Constellation frigate program fails they are toast I think. Which is why they cannot allow it to fail.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
If the Constellation frigate program fails they are toast I think. Which is why they cannot allow it to fail.
Well, at least they are being more realistic about procurement this time around
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I don't see any reason why Constellation class would fail. After all, they are just taking an existing design that works and adding more stuff to it. It will be grossly over budget like every other recent USN program. It won't be the disaster that LCS is.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I don't see any reason why Constellation class would fail. After all, they are just taking an existing design that works and adding more stuff to it. It will be grossly over budget like every other recent USN program. It won't be the disaster that LCS is.
They said the same thing about those helicopters for the POTUS.
 
Top