Comments on: Old is the New New

By: racheal

racheal — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:24:29 +0000

Response to the guy about the Matell Ie m16, Reason for the m-16, is to wound the enemy. If i shoot and kill you, oh well. If i wound you, then someone has to help you move around. Someone has to rescue you. Hence 1 bullet means 2–3 people out of action. EVEN if for only a few moments.
Also, until someone comes up with a better weapon, the M16 / m4 is a awesome weapon. HIGHLY accurate to 500M. Lots of people say hey the AK47 is the greatest.. Well, it isnt accurate for jack. I dont want to hear about “well with my ak, i am such and such” All i know is that i can get any marine, with a m16, and from 300 m, he can engage the enemy, and be pretty confident on hitting what he is shooting at..
In war, it isnt about always the ability to kill the enemy, but more so, to stand off, and be able to survive while still inflicting damage yourself

By: Joe Katzman

Joe Katzman — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 09:16:12 +0000

The core problem here is the V-22. What this article says, in fact, is that the advantages which supposedly justified its $100 million per plane cost were either a fantasy or a lie. The main task it was touted for — reaching deep into enemy territory with combat-useful loads — is impossible.
A larger helicopter like the H-92, which could be bought for less than half the cost, would be able to fly current vehicles into position at about 150 mph. The Osprey can’t fly anything in because it’s far to narrow — or if it does fly anything in, what it flies in must be customized, expensive, and won’t have any serious protection. See the Growler as enhibit A. Fly in the 120mm mortar that’s needed as fire support? Well, it can sling it below… and fly more slowly than an H-92. Lovely.
The V-22 is going to eviscerate the combat capability of the US Marine Corps for a generation. First by eating up vast funds with its cost, which can’t fund other priorities. Then with the small number the Marines will have when it’s all done. Now add the additional expenses it will require to create equipment that can fit in it (and which will be sub-standard). Finally, via all the things it will not be able to do, and which the Marines will therefore stop trying to do.

By: Mike F.

Mike F. — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:42:24 +0000

The GD vehicle’s for the MV-22 are, in fact, quite expensive. $155,000 for starters, and probably slightly more expensive than the UDLP solution over the duration of the contract.

By: Gab

Gab — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:29:20 +0000

“So the Marines are seriously considering buying a new version of the old M-151 Jeep to move the mortar. Imagine that: the old Jeep back in production, 20 years after it got bumped off the battlefield by the Humvee. It’s not the only case where the military is looking to old machines — some decades out of service — to meet its current and future needs.“
“One more thing, if we can’t design a land vehicle better than a 60 year old Jeep“
That’s a bit misleading as the USMC was offered a modified UDLP (now BAe) ITV mated with a Soltam 120mm mortar for their EFSS requirement. If the USMC decided to go for a Growler modified M151 with a French RDA 120mm mortar, that’s their perogative, it was probably cheaper than the considerably more modern UD alternative.
UDLPs ITV:
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4500/itv0wj.jpg
UDLPs EFSS contender:
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/6005/efss6yz.jpg
“alternatives to the Navy’s $3-billion-per-copy DD(X) destroyer, which is being touted as a fire-support platform“
And would they retro-fit the AN/SPY-3, MK57 VLS cells, SM-6, SM-3, and ESSM on the BBs as well? DD(X)‘s fire support role has always been considered a secondary role over ABM and fleet air defense.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:30:17 +0000

One more thing, if we can’t design a land vehicle better than a 60 year old Jeep, or a gun better than a 70 year old M1, or an airplane better than a 40 year old OV-10, we don’t deserve to be free. We are an embarrassment to the generations of innovators who precede us.

By: Dfens

Dfens — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:21:46 +0000

The North American population is on average one of the tallest and heaviest on the planet. We are giants compared to people living in most areas hostile to our interests. So what do we use as our weapon of choice? A kid’s gun! Then we weave 30 years worth of marketing bs around how good the POS is. States won’t even let you use a pop gun like that on a 140 lb. deer because it would be too inhumane. Too many wounded animals not put down in a timely manner. But it’s ok for our troops to put their lives on the line with the wimpy thing. Unbelievable!

By: WW

WW — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:36:24 +0000

As a Viet Nam era Marine, I can only snicker at the problems of the M-16 and the newer stuff. The M-16 was just being issued when the troops field-stripped them down to their component parts and found the “Made by Mattel” logos in the fore-grips. More than a few were broken practicing butt strokes on bulkheads.
Me, I’d want an M-14 with AP ammo if I’m doing urban warfare, and an M1911A1 if it gets close. I used an M-2 as a gunner on CH-46s and that was a pleasure, at least for me if not the guy on the other end!

By: Mike Howe

Mike Howe — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:10:30 +0000

I was in the program that updated the BB’s to their new weapon suites. The big expense that will not go away without a major overhaul is the propulsion system. That is also where the major drain on manpower is, outside of the main gun turrets themselves.
They are quite useful now and if the 16″ gun system is upgraded (plans on the books already for years) they will be very lethal in support of our troops anywhere in the littoral.

By: mark

mark — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:25:36 +0000

While I love the thought about de-mothballing the BBs, IIRC the problem was the insane number of people it takes to run one of those brutes. Hopefully there wouldn’t be a problem getting the crews needed.

By: TrustButVerify

TrustButVerify — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:16:55 +0000

Quite right, Mike. Though the Javelin was instrumental in saving a SOF team from being overrun by Iraqi armor back during the “major combat operations”.
We might note, though, that a few days ago a post said the Javelin isn’t preferred for attacking buildings because it tends to lock on to the stronger IR signature of nearby cars. Fine with me, as long as it can stop a North Korean AFV.