US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

S

Scratch

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


E-2D Advanced Hawkeye completes first catapult launch

By Gareth Jennings - 20 October 2009

The first Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) test aircraft – Delta One – has successfully completed its first land-based catapult launch tests, the company announced on 16 October.

System development and demonstration aircraft, Delta One and Delta Two, are currently undergoing shore-based carrier suitability testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, conducted by the US Navy's (USN's) Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 20 (VX-20).

The catapult-launch trials are designed to test both the structural integrity of the aircraft and its systems against the loads encountered during carrier operations as well as the interoperability between the aircraft and the ship.

According to the company test pilot: "We completed multiple launches and during each one Delta One performed as expected, with no noted anomalies."

The E-2D is the sixth generation of the E-2. While its external appearance is similar to the E-2C currently in service with the navy, the internal systems of the Advanced Hawkeye have been redesigned and its capabilities vastly expanded.

The E-2D is due to begin its initial operational test and evaluation phase in 2011, with an in-service date currently scheduled for later that year.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
Rising China said:
Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the “Crow’s Nest.” The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.

On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.

“My weapon was overheating,” McKaig said, according to Cubbison’s report. “I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn’t charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down.”
Click to expand...

Translation: I can't hit the broad side of a barn and do not know the difference between aimed fire and wasted ammunition. I will say for 99% of the time, is that "suppressive" fire, isn't suppressive. Accurate fire suppresses and causes casualties, inaccurate fire wastes ammo.

Yes Afghans can attack like ceaseless swarms of cockroaches, but I really can't see anyone firing 336-360 rds within 30min for good effect in any circumstances, even one in a very target rich environment. In fact, it is indefensible; it is now an operator/training issue, not a weapons issue.

There is nothing wrong with the M4. Combat Marksmanship is terrible these days - judging distance and placing accurate fire off the range is lacking. What is needed is more realistic training that drives home the point of good marksmanship and maintenance. I also bet the rifle he was holding probably wasn't properly lubricated; its 2009, we have been fighting for 8 years in Afghan, and guns are still not getting properly lubed in theatre; that is a HUGE chain of command failure. The M16/M4 likes lubrication; lots of it, and enough that it will be at times dripping from your rifle. That's ok.

The Americans released a comic book style set of cleaning/maintenance instructions for the M16 when it was first issued in the Vietnam War, and it was actually an excellent set of instructions, even going so far as to explain WHY you don't remove the trigger mechanism, WHY you don't scrape it with steel tools, WHY having oil on the weapons come inspection time is acceptable. It was easy to read, easy to understand, and didn't read like it was Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. Perhaps it needs to be reissued, this time suitably updated, as parts numbers have changed.
 
P

pla101prc

Senior Member
Pointblank said:
Translation: I can't hit the broad side of a barn and do not know the difference between aimed fire and wasted ammunition. I will say for 99% of the time, is that "suppressive" fire, isn't suppressive. Accurate fire suppresses and causes casualties, inaccurate fire wastes ammo.

Yes Afghans can attack like ceaseless swarms of cockroaches, but I really can't see anyone firing 336-360 rds within 30min for good effect in any circumstances, even one in a very target rich environment. In fact, it is indefensible; it is now an operator/training issue, not a weapons issue.

There is nothing wrong with the M4. Combat Marksmanship is terrible these days - judging distance and placing accurate fire off the range is lacking. What is needed is more realistic training that drives home the point of good marksmanship and maintenance. I also bet the rifle he was holding probably wasn't properly lubricated; its 2009, we have been fighting for 8 years in Afghan, and guns are still not getting properly lubed in theatre; that is a HUGE chain of command failure. The M16/M4 likes lubrication; lots of it, and enough that it will be at times dripping from your rifle. That's ok.

The Americans released a comic book style set of cleaning/maintenance instructions for the M16 when it was first issued in the Vietnam War, and it was actually an excellent set of instructions, even going so far as to explain WHY you don't remove the trigger mechanism, WHY you don't scrape it with steel tools, WHY having oil on the weapons come inspection time is acceptable. It was easy to read, easy to understand, and didn't read like it was Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. Perhaps it needs to be reissued, this time suitably updated, as parts numbers have changed.
Click to expand...

apart from bad firing discipline i think you can put some of the blame on bad leadership. not sure if this is how it works in the US army, but when you are in a firefight, there are different rates of fire. sometimes you will be firing at the rate the dude was talkin about. but doing that for thirty min, i can only say that he prolly didnt even see the enemy. the squad prolly didnt go through proper sequence of action, no target indication, squad leader didnt give proper direction as to what rate of fire to use. everyone just let it rip at the direction where they think gun shot is coming from. once the dude next to you starts firing, you'll do the same...i know cuz i've done it as a recruit lol.

as for the weapon maintanence issue, i agree with you that is definitely HUGE. any soldier going onto the battlefield should have been properly taught stuff like why certain parts are lubricated and certain parts are kept dry, that stuff should be taught in the basic. in iraq and afghanistan where there is a lot of sand (i think...my geography sucks),weapons are lubricated but must be dried cuz dust will build up quickly in gas operated parts then it starts jamming. seeing that these should be common knowledge among soldiers, i say its just out of sheer laziness if weapons arent maintained properly, and as you said, the chain of command oughtta get a grip of their troops.

bd popeye said:
Malfunctioning weapons is never good.. Never ever...:(

I'm not trying to minimize the loss of life on the US side however >>During the two major battles that occurred that day it is seldom mentioned that the Taliban took very heavy losses. In addition the base was not over run nor did the US forces retreat. The base is now abandoned. It was set to be abandoned before the attack occupied.
Click to expand...

nowadays its prolly hard to fake your casualty count like back in WWII. but i say in a lot of the cases insurgent casualties are highly inflated just so that the military does not look bad. and there are also widespread cases of fake reports by individual soldiers. (everyone is guilty of this everywhere) they'll drive a hummer out to patrol, go to a spot where no one sees, take out an AK they hid somewhere, fire at the vehicle, go back and say they were attacked...you get extra pay for that stuff. as for enemy casualty reports, sometimes you have two soldiers shooting at one enemy and kills him, both of them claim to have killed someone, so it counts as two...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
the article in questions is so full of holes large enough too drive the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) and her battle group though with out touching any paper.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Other wise I side with the Soldier on the Field. he is the man on the field and was in the heat of the moment what he says is more informative then any thing we back here at our computers can and will say and if he says that the weapons failed him I want too know why and how it can be corrected not point the finger and start throwing around blame at the solder, his rank indicates that he should have some experience with the weapon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
when fired in rapid succession each round adds heat too the system a systems that then cycles that heat back into it's operation.. think of it like a bee sting you get stung once your pull out the stinger and although it hurts a little your fine ( assuming your not allergic) now one shot will work it's venom though pretty quick but if you keep getting stung over and over again the poison just keeps building and building and if you don't stop getting stung eventually your system over loads and Anaphylactic shock set's in you slip into a coma and die. in this case the heat reaches a point where the weapon can no longer function because it becomes dangerous or fails.
 
P

Pointblank

Senior Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
the article in questions is so full of holes large enough too drive the USS Enterprise (CVN 64) and her battle group though with out touching any paper.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Other wise I side with the Soldier on the Field. he is the man on the field and was in the heat of the moment what he says is more informative then any thing we back here at our computers can and will say and if he says that the weapons failed him I want too know why and how it can be corrected not point the finger and start throwing around blame at the solder, his rank indicates that he should have some experience with the weapon.
Click to expand...

I've seen how some of these people use their weapons on the field; I bet you that he wasn't exercising proper firing discipline. I've seen soldiers hold their rifles above their head over a wall and shoot in the direction they think the enemy is; its a complete waste of ammo and abuses the weapon unnecessarily as it is EXTREMELY unlikely that they will hit anything. In fact, it would be a miracle if they did. If he was trying to suppress the enemy, he didn't do that; first of all, the M4 is not a machine gun, it is not intended for sustained automatic fire. Second of all, it abuses the weapon; all the soldier will end up with is overheated/jammed weapons and the little guys still plinking at you. The only heads it kept down was the shooter's.

The M4 has a cyclic rate of close to 700-950 rounds per minute (RPM) and the M249 can reach over 750–1,000. Both guns will fire at this rate of limited periods and can be used that way in an emergency. It doesn't take long, however, before barrels burn out, oil burns off, metal parts expand and tolerances become just a little bit too tight. Then the gun will let you down, probably when you need it the most. The sustained rate of fire is much less. That means that the operator must use proper fire discipline, and shoot in short bursts, which would be easier on the weapon, and it also means more accuracy. Take the time to aim properly, and you will do much more damage with fewer bullets. This is primarily a operator/training error regarding the soldier with the M4. Throwing away his rifle also indicates an operator error again; yes, his rifle should be hot. Yes, it should also be out of lubrication. All he had to do was to get some water from his camelback or anywhere else and pour it on his rifle to cool it off, then squeeze some lube into the rifle, it should resume working.

Quiet honestly a good 75% of non-SOF forces had weapons that where in a serious need of both proper maintenance and suffering a serious lack of weapons skills.

Now for the jammed M249... The SAW does have a quick change barrel; why wasn't this used, along with a splash of water to cool down the weapon during the barrel change? This would have prevented the overheating and jamming issues. Sounds like, again, a operator/training issue.
 
P

pla101prc

Senior Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
when fired in rapid succession each round adds heat too the system a systems that then cycles that heat back into it's operation.. think of it like a bee sting you get stung once your pull out the stinger and although it hurts a little your fine ( assuming your not allergic) now one shot will work it's venom though pretty quick but if you keep getting stung over and over again the poison just keeps building and building and if you don't stop getting stung eventually your system over loads and Anaphylactic shock set's in you slip into a coma and die. in this case the heat reaches a point where the weapon can no longer function because it becomes dangerous or fails.
Click to expand...

i am pretty sure when he said he blew 12 mags in half an hour he wasnt firing each round at exactly 5 second intervals. half an hour could be an overstatement, one dude with actual combat experience in the link you provided have stated that time moves quite differently when you are under fire. but whatever the case was, the soldier, in the couple of minutes prior to having his weapon too hot to handle, must have been firing at an extremely high rate. i am not exactly sure why he didnt cool the weapon down with water. i never used an m4 but i am pretty sure it works the same way as does an m-16,being air-cooled, if you are firing at five second intervals it shouldnt be overheating in such short amount of time.
 
P

pla101prc

Senior Member
Pointblank said:
I've seen how some of these people use their weapons on the field; I bet you that he wasn't exercising proper firing discipline. I've seen soldiers hold their rifles above their head over a wall and shoot in the direction they think the enemy is; its a complete waste of ammo and abuses the weapon unnecessarily as it is EXTREMELY unlikely that they will hit anything. In fact, it would be a miracle if they did. If he was trying to suppress the enemy, he didn't do that; first of all, the M4 is not a machine gun, it is not intended for sustained automatic fire. Second of all, it abuses the weapon; all the soldier will end up with is overheated/jammed weapons and the little guys still plinking at you. The only heads it kept down was the shooter's.

The M4 has a cyclic rate of close to 700-950 rounds per minute (RPM) and the M249 can reach over 750–1,000. Both guns will fire at this rate of limited periods and can be used that way in an emergency. It doesn't take long, however, before barrels burn out, oil burns off, metal parts expand and tolerances become just a little bit too tight. Then the gun will let you down, probably when you need it the most. The sustained rate of fire is much less. That means that the operator must use proper fire discipline, and shoot in short bursts, which would be easier on the weapon, and it also means more accuracy. Take the time to aim properly, and you will do much more damage with fewer bullets. This is primarily a operator/training error regarding the soldier with the M4. Throwing away his rifle also indicates an operator error again; yes, his rifle should be hot. Yes, it should also be out of lubrication. All he had to do was to get some water from his camelback or anywhere else and pour it on his rifle to cool it off, then squeeze some lube into the rifle, it should resume working.

Quiet honestly a good 75% of non-SOF forces had weapons that where in a serious need of both proper maintenance and suffering a serious lack of weapons skills.

Now for the jammed M249... The SAW does have a quick change barrel; why wasn't this used, along with a splash of water to cool down the weapon during the barrel change? This would have prevented the overheating and jamming issues. Sounds like, again, a operator/training issue.
Click to expand...

not exactly sure that most troops are suffering a serious lack of weapons skills lol. afterall at basic training level the handling of a service rifle would be practiced so much that it has become second nature for each soldier. personally, as a reservist i would learn my drills, and then go to school and not touch a weapon for months cuz my MOC is no longer infantry, come time for individual weapon test, i didnt need any review at all and still would be able to use is as well as any infanteer in my unit. the guys we are talkin about here are reg force grunts who are practically married to their weapon. i'd say a lot of the cases improper handling and maintenance of the weapon is simply due to laziness. weapon cleaning can be a real b*tch sometimes, especially when you have to get to the inside of it, i'll admit that i sometimes am guilty of neglecting certain parts of it as well. but overall i wouldnt question the skills and training these dudes have, they arent as good as the Canadians but most likely as good as anyone else.:roll:
as for the rate of fire again i'd blame it on leadership. and dont use full auto unless the enemy is within 50m and there are a whole bunch of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top