OT- Recoiless Rifle

[Bishop746]

Interesting. I looked up the M3 on the internet, which I had never heard of. The US should have an equivalent to the RPG since it was an effective weapon. Why only Ranger and SOF units, wouldn't infantry platoons be well served by a weapon like this.

[PlasmaKrab]

I guess the 'regular' infantry is still much into the cold war inheritance of being suited to fight off armour at close ranges. Hence the squad-level Dragon missile launcher which is deliriously high anti-armour power for the unit size, not even mentionning the pricetag.
That's basically that Dragon that is supposed to be replaced by the Carl Gustav in Ranger units, since they expect to encounter less armor and more various targets, and that's also where it stands or stood in most other armies.

There again, modern developments have shown a major shift in the actual infantry role, and hardware development has started to reflect it, whit e.g. concrete-piercing or FAE variants for the Bofors AT-4 and its US version the M-136. That could give some diversified punch when situation requires.

[Bishop746]

I take your point about fighting armor at close range with a very expensive weapon. I'm not saying an infantry squad will never encounter heavy armor on the battlefield but squads should have cheap, reloadable weapons capable of knocking out bunkers, fighting positions and infantry in buildings.

The US military has a terrible track record of spending incredible amounts of money of weapon systems when a cheaper one would be better and more cost effective.

Examples for comment:

Osprey
F23 Raptor
OICW(my personal choice for a weapon that I would like to see scrapped. Have you seen this thing? Looks like a reject from the movie "Aliens")
Growler

[SGTGunn]

The OICWS was scrapped, as was its immediate replacement the H&K XM8 Rifle. The grenade launcher bit was saved as a seperate weapons, the XM25 and should be field testing soon. It looks like any replacement rifle projects are on hold until the caliber debate (5.56mm vs. 6.8mm vs. 7.62mm) that is going on right now is resolved. The US Special Operations Command has adopted its own new rifle, the FN Mk.16 SCAR-L And Mk.17 SCAR-H in 5.56 x 45mm and 7.62 x 51mm respectivley. There will also be a 7.62 x 39mm variant that takes AK mags. I would not be suprised to see some version of the SCAR become the new US service rifle one the Army finally decideds to get its head out of its fourth point of contact. On an interesting side note, the US Army has announced that it is looking for a replacement of the M9 Berretta 9mm Pistol, and that it must be a .45 ACP! Yay!

[Bishop746]

I looked up that FN SCAR-L weapon online, it reminds me of the FN FNC rifle. FN has an established history of making quality smallarms. I would like to see the US manufacture a licenced version of the FN SCAR here in the states. They've done it before with the 1903 Springfield.

Do you think the M16 and M4 could be phased out for regular infantry and be replaced with the FN SCAR-L?

The 9mm to be replaced by the .45? Hard to believe that a caliber that has proven track record like the .45 could EVER replace the fine NATO approved 9mm BB. Many experts told the military that the 45 did not need to replaced but I think it was more of a political dicision.

[thatguy96]

SCAR-L/H first need to actually make in into wide-spread SOF usage. As of right now, SOCOM has apparently balked on some level, because while they agreed to purchase the system, no one has seen it fielded yet.

Also, the SCAR series is manufactured physically in the United States, at FN's plant in this country (in VA I believe). This is why the US market is now seeing the sale of the PS90 carbine and whatever semi-auto F2000 variant was also presented at last years SHOT Show.

The OICW program has been scrapped, the XM8 has been put in indefinite hold pending a new competition for what is now being termed the "Modular Weapon System," and the XM25 is apparently progressing through its development phase. OCSW is also progressing right along. The Future Combat Pistol trials to replace the M9 might even be underway already, as I have not been paying attention to that closely.

As to the caliber debate, I was unaware that there was one. The 6.8x45mm requirement was dropped from both the SCAR competition and the new MWS competition. Developing 5.56x45mm catridges appears to be more cost effective than switching calibers.

[Mustang]

Bishop746 said:
The US military has a terrible track record of spending incredible amounts of money of weapon systems when a cheaper one would be better and more cost effective.

Examples for comment:

Osprey
F23 Raptor

The F-22 Raptor issue is more of a warfighting philosophy question than a performance one. To America, saving soldier's lives is the most important part of fighting a war. The fact is, equipping your troops with $200 million worth of techno-crap will save at best few hundred lives, while the same money invested in enhancing hospitols or police nations in a neglected area would save thousands. But investing in stuff to protect soldiers has visible effects; you can see soldiers thanking the Army for saving their lives by giving them Kevlar on the evening news. But non-military spending, although more efficient, doesn't usually give a clear advantage. It's not that it dosen't make a difference; it's simply not obvious.

The point is that America buys $300 million (that's the latest price I've heard) Raptors because its military can afford to. The defence budget keeps going up, so it has to spend money on SOMETHING. Buying 6 F-16s for $50 million each might do the job better, but at a greater cost in lives. So it's all about whether you want to get the job done better, or the job done easier. This is why so many American weapon systems are gold-plated; the Bradley, the $10 million M1A3 (as compared to $2 million M1A1s with basically the same capability), and so on.

As for the Osprey, it's had some good news lately. It's too early to tell whether it will flop, or be another surprise (like the M1 tank, which was also criticised a lot before it entered service).

[thatguy96]

The Osprey is the only one of these new programs I always hoped would actually go somewhere. The V-22 actually has the potential to revolutionize the battlefield and add a new dimension to mobility of US forces.

[Randy]

Don't forget the Marine Corps' AAAV/EFV. This is hopefully going to be a good vehicle for the Marines, but it is also very expensive. Besides modern weapons being very expensive, they take a long time to develop. Imagine if the WWII equipment took this long to design, develop and produce-they would still be fighting that war. The Army's RAH66 Comanche was at least ten years in development and they only built a few of them before it was canceled. Now I think the Army is going to use a modified AH6.

[pdoktar]

The "9mm BB", is roughly comparable to the .45ACP in stopping power and has better ballistic characters and is easier to carry and fire. Nowadays the culture in american gun magazines and "I used the .45ACP with deadly effect, as my other 9mm Para just glanzed off the enemy"-stories and the fact that SOF uses .45ACP is turning again the favor in the army towards the .45ACP and it´s "massive" stopping power. As the current .223cal assault rifles have the real problems in stopping power, and nothing can be done about it, they´re reflecting this to such personal levels as wanting a pistol that has the stopping power needed, whether the older caliber would be adequate, or even better for as a last-ditch weapon.

Pistols are useless in combat. If any truck driver is fighting off the enemy with his service pistol, he´ll get killed after dispensing his first magazine, whether or not using 9mm or .45ACP. Switching calibers back from 9mm to .45ACP would be pure idiocy.