Jura The idiot
General
simple question: is it good? (LOL I mean the gun, not the vid)
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
noticed the vid
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
From what I know of it, on paper it's very good.
Half the weight of an M249, even lighter then the Marines M27 yet still belt fed. For an Infantry men this means it's easier to maneuver with.
Easy to control Based on the Stoner LMG. as to Reliability?? The design has not actually been used by anyone so it's mostly unproven in combat, but that doesn't mean much And this thing has been in the works for a long time. Only changes I would like are a Carry handle on the barrel to help in barrel changes and a semi option on the Trigger group.
It seems counter intuitive to put a semi auto option on a MG but it helps in zeroing optics and can be useful for situations where ROE demands a single shot.
Half the weight of an M249, even lighter then the Marines M27 yet still belt fed. For an Infantry men this means it's easier to maneuver with.
Easy to control Based on the Stoner LMG. as to Reliability?? The design has not actually been used by anyone so it's mostly unproven in combat, but that doesn't mean much And this thing has been in the works for a long time. Only changes I would like are a Carry handle on the barrel to help in barrel changes and a semi option on the Trigger group.
It seems counter intuitive to put a semi auto option on a MG but it helps in zeroing optics and can be useful for situations where ROE demands a single shot.
Jura The idiot
General
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Because of the Hot debate over the fate of the Old F15C/D series. It says so in the article.
Jura The idiot
General
I guess the most important word of that article is missing in that article, and this word is: F-35
it's debatable if the Pentagon can afford the planned ... copies ... and it's even more debatable if it can afford to be upgrading the teen-series at the same time
Sunday at 10:56 AM
Jura The idiot
General
May 19, 2018
:
"The House bill would force the Pentagon to proceed with its JSTARS recapitalization plans the Air Force would like to abandon in favor of a new advanced battle management system. Even though the House and SASC would put restrictions on retiring the legacy JSTARS, the SASC bill would supporting the Air Force’s pursuit of advanced battle management systems by including funding to accelerate it.
The idea behind the ABMS is instead of having a commercial business jet-sized surveillance aircraft close to the battlefield ― where it is vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles ― troops would have a fused picture from the Air Force’s current inventory of aircraft and drones to do the ground surveillance mission.
Lawmakers in both chambers have expressed concerns that it will take so long accomplish that it’s unwise to scrap the existing program.
“There’s a recognition in the Senate bill that we don’t want to retire aircraft too quickly before a replacement capability arises such that we end up with a gap,” an SASC staffer said. “We do not direct them to proceed with the recap out of concerns with survivability, which we share with the department.”
Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, in Senate testimony May 17, said that to operate both JSTARs and the ABMS, it would take a whopping $7 billion more than the Air Force’s budget proposal."
and here's JSTARS related part of the most recent DefenseNews article
:
"The House bill would force the Pentagon to proceed with its JSTARS recapitalization plans the Air Force would like to abandon in favor of a new advanced battle management system. Even though the House and SASC would put restrictions on retiring the legacy JSTARS, the SASC bill would supporting the Air Force’s pursuit of advanced battle management systems by including funding to accelerate it.
The idea behind the ABMS is instead of having a commercial business jet-sized surveillance aircraft close to the battlefield ― where it is vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles ― troops would have a fused picture from the Air Force’s current inventory of aircraft and drones to do the ground surveillance mission.
Lawmakers in both chambers have expressed concerns that it will take so long accomplish that it’s unwise to scrap the existing program.
“There’s a recognition in the Senate bill that we don’t want to retire aircraft too quickly before a replacement capability arises such that we end up with a gap,” an SASC staffer said. “We do not direct them to proceed with the recap out of concerns with survivability, which we share with the department.”
Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, in Senate testimony May 17, said that to operate both JSTARs and the ABMS, it would take a whopping $7 billion more than the Air Force’s budget proposal."
Jura The idiot
General
May 15, 2018
"KC-46
The SASC bill authorizes $2.3 billion to procure 14 KC-46 aircraft, which is one aircraft fewer than the administration’s request, to — according to the bill summary — “restore program accountability.”
The committee was concerned with the program’s repeated delays and is applying its leverage. “It’s a signal to the [Defense] Department and to Boeing that we feel strongly that they need to get their act together and get this program moving forward,“ another SASC aide said."
also funny (the DefenseNews linked in the post right above):
"KC-46
The SASC bill authorizes $2.3 billion to procure 14 KC-46 aircraft, which is one aircraft fewer than the administration’s request, to — according to the bill summary — “restore program accountability.”
The committee was concerned with the program’s repeated delays and is applying its leverage. “It’s a signal to the [Defense] Department and to Boeing that we feel strongly that they need to get their act together and get this program moving forward,“ another SASC aide said."
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Thats the cynicism talking. The F35 is not the end all be all of Pentagon success or failure. F15C/D has issues of its own.
Jura The idiot
General
you could've included the sentence following the one you clipped out of Yesterday at 8:12 PM
:
"it's debatable if the Pentagon can afford the planned ... copies ... and it's even more debatable if it can afford to be upgrading the teen-series at the same time"
at this point I'll leave it by pressing 'Like'