TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I was expecting that. there has already been interest in Singapore's Next Generation Armored vehicle family, I mostly think it's a analysis of alternatives, and Any bidding vehicle would still have to be made Stateside.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
now I read it and I wouldn't have thought a country with like one billion pieces, and Military experienced with firearms since the times of Brown Bess, might select (= to pay for) something like this
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
History Jura... History The M9 had a major engineering design change imposed early on to.
according to some ( who know who they are) the AR15 as a whole is also a piece of junk. They are wrong the early issues were fixed and had more to do with people not bothering to make ammo to spec, or considering the humidity of the tropics.
The rounds of the M17/M18 are also new, and the sidearms is always a fall back weapon.
Some are very very angry about the choice not to go with Glock or just to Keep the M9. What the new pistol seeks to offer is a future proof design. A system that can be easily reconfigured to match changes in sidearm design rather then having to buy new ones when changes need to happen. M1911A1 and M9 couldn't do that. When the US army bought M1911's back in 1911 those pistols fought well in WW1 but could not be refit to match the demands of the Change to M1911A1. Well those farther suffered as the US kept them in service until the late 80's because as a pistol designed in the early quarter of the century it demands a lot of hand machining to get it to work perfectly. Now once that is done it's a work of Art and Shoots like a dream. but the Heavy caliber Low capacity and heavy gunsmithing needs really should have retired it by the 1970's, of course the replacement only emerged in the 80's, and even then elements of US SOCOM and MARSOC kept M1911A1 modifications in service until a few years back.
The M9 had issues upfront in the form of a slide not designed for the heavier ball ammo that was used in it from time to time. In fact the Navy Seals flat out dropped it and adopted Sig P226 pistols, and because of its size some units demanded a smaller pistol the M11 a Sig P228 was adopted for them.
Those M9 pistols remain in service and only the Marines authorized a modification the M9A1. on the Whole the M9 as issued in the US military is the exact same pistol as issued in the 1991 Gulf war.
In the early 90's SOCOM demanded a pistol for suppressor use. the M9 although possible was felt lacking so Socom adopted the Mk23 mod 0, a Pistol just smaller then the Desert Eagle and so specialized it basically replaces an Primary weapon, it's size however counted against it and it's proved a unpopular weapon. Especially since soon after HK the maker of the MK23 developed the smaller USP tactical in .45ACP with the same suppressor features but the .45ACP has also proven a bit troubled because of high recoil low velocity and low capacity plus specialized need.
MEUSOC and FORCE RECON Marines kept the M1911A1 and heavily modified them continuously.
With the War on Terror these pistols special forces and otherwise faced far more use then they had in the peaceful period and started to show their age. The first plan was simple Reprocure
MEUSOC moved from rebuilding M1911A1's from it's stocks to Building increasingly more and more custom pistols into the new millennium when they had to stop using existing stores of M1911 frames and buy new frames from custom makers ( Kimber ICQB) but the numbers game demanded more so they stopped and outsourced to Colt Firearms to make the M45 based off Colt modified Rail M1911A1s with 8 rounds of .45ACP. But then something happened In a joint exercise in Jordan and they were facing off against commando's packing Glocks and Sigs in 9mm with 17 round magazines. They couldn't keep up.
In around 2008
The Navy Bought brand new Mk 25 mod 0 Sig P226 pistols and they worked well
They also bough the New Mk 24 mod 0 to phase out the USP and MK23's these new pistols were HK45 Compact Tactical
but increasingly Socom found that there was a pistol that found itself the better competitor as the 9mm round was more and more proving just enough to get the job done without the losses in capacity. This is when (2016) US SOCOM adopted the MK 26 mod 0, Mk 27 mod 0, Mk 28 mod 0 and Mk 29 mod 0 Variants of the Glock 26, Glock 19, Glock 17 and Glock 34 respectively. Around that time MARSOC and Marine Raiders as well as Army Rangers and Delta ( had already) traded in there .45's for variants of the 9mm Glock pistol.
With this you can see why a lot of people were betting on a Glock M17
So What happened at MHS? how did Glock not win? well 2 pistols got to the final phase, The Pistol that would become the Glock 19X on the commercial market and the winner the Sig P320 MHS.
What Glock offered has been jokingly described as the Handgun equivalent of a Mullet. "business in the front, party in the back"
It is a Glock 19 slide and recoil system on a Glock 17 frame. All evidence is this was there single intended offering.
Now I am not a fan of Glock pistols. The Glock is the Toyota of pistols, it's the barrest most basic of what a modern combat pistol should be, It's nothing special. back in the 80's and early 90's when polymer frames were new yeah a stand out but today just about everybody has a polymer frame option.
The sights are basic nothing special, they added a lip to the grip which actually hurts it using some magazines and so to does the lanyard loop. The Glock Accessory rail that only mounts accessories made for it. The only difference between the 19X and the MHS offering is the MHS 19X had a manual safety.
Sig P320 has it's issues, and they are still having some issues. what they offered was a P320 modified with manual safety in FDE color, with fiber optic sights, that's a major upgrade compared to the Glock irons. a removable plate on the rear of the slide that allows mounting of a micro dot optic in this case the Leupold delta point Pro was specified for the Army. a Mil Std rail that will fit in service accessories, two sizes a full size and a smaller for compact carry.
Both had to offer Suppressor kits and holsters. Sig won because they did all that, they met or acceded the reliability demanded by the testing standards and at a price point below the Glock bid.
Now Jura what the Article you link to does is basically try to say that the Army's own reliability demands were invalid. That the bar was set to low. Now 6 other bidders were entered for the MHS including Beretta APX, CZ P07, FN FNS, Kriss USA Sphinx SDP and Smith and Wesson M&P 2.0, all of these pistols were dropped from the program for not meeting the demands of reliability with only the SIg and the Glock standing.
These complaints are paroting of the Glock Complaints to the GAO who found them to be mostly baseless.
.
Jura The idiot
General
thanks for your explanation, but what I basically meant Yesterday at 8:40 PM was this:
since the main issue appears to be [the winner] "... did not function reliably with the companion XM1152, a standard “ball” round with a bullet fully enclosed within a copper jacket." (according to the article from Monday at 8:56 PM), and it's hard to believe they didn't know about this issue,
why did the Pentagon buy?
timepass
Brigadier
"Lockheed Martin has tested a new configuration of its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile at the White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, Friday, January 26th. The test comprised a controlled flight of the miniature missile to demonstrate the interceptor’s increased agility and to validate the performance of its airframe and electronics. The missile now uses a common configuration for both active and semi-active guided missiles.
The increased agility was required to enable the weapon to defeat its primary targets – rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) and Counter-UAV target with greater accuracy, reliability, and range compared to current systems."
The increased agility was required to enable the weapon to defeat its primary targets – rockets, artillery and mortar (RAM) and Counter-UAV target with greater accuracy, reliability, and range compared to current systems."
timepass
Brigadier
" The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has awarded Lockheed Martin a contract for additional Lot 10 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors for the U.S. Army.
The deal, announced Friday by the Department of Defense, is valued at more than $459.2 million under a modified fixed-price incentive-firm target contract for line item numbers."
The deal, announced Friday by the Department of Defense, is valued at more than $459.2 million under a modified fixed-price incentive-firm target contract for line item numbers."
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
because they deemed the issue not a deal breaker. Because the X in XM means developmental and subject to change.
Op-ed by the recent candidate for US ambassador to South Korea Victor Cha related to the latest rumors of US consideration of a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, take it as you will.
Victor Cha: Giving North Korea a ‘bloody nose’ carries a huge risk to Americans
By Victor Cha January 30 at 8:28 PM
Fears of US ‘bloody nose’ attack on North Korea on the rise
Dropped US ambassador designate publishes scathing attack on limited strike option just prior to Trump’s State of Union address
By ANDREW SALMON JANUARY 31, 2018 1:14 PM (UTC+8)
Victor Cha: Giving North Korea a ‘bloody nose’ carries a huge risk to Americans
By Victor Cha January 30 at 8:28 PM
Fears of US ‘bloody nose’ attack on North Korea on the rise
Dropped US ambassador designate publishes scathing attack on limited strike option just prior to Trump’s State of Union address
By ANDREW SALMON JANUARY 31, 2018 1:14 PM (UTC+8)
Equation
Lieutenant General
The test did occurred but there was no confirm "failed" and I doubt the military will ever tell either.
U.S.
The U.S. missile defense system reportedly failed to intercept a test missile
Bad news, everyone: America's missile defense system failed during a test Wednesday, CNN reports. In the test, the defensive missile known as the SM-3 Block IIA was supposed to shoot down a flying object meant to imitate an intercontinental ballistic missile. This is no easy feat. One of the missile's developers, defense contractor Raytheon, compares it "to intercepting a bullet with another bullet." Still, it reportedly failed, raising concerns that the U.S. remains vulnerable to incoming missiles. A Department of Defense spokesperson would only acknowledge to CNN that the test occurred, not whether it failed.