New Army uniform but no new rifle/cartridge?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Trooper View Post
yet we are told that there is no money for a new rifle let alone a new caliber.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Michael View PostYep.
'They're very pretty, Colonel, but can they fight?'
General Pinkley, Dirty Dozen
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by stanc View PostWhat billions? The planned changes to the uniform should incur little, if any, additional cost.
Can you cite a source for that claim? I've never seen any official statement to that effect.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Trooper View PostNothing official. But when you bring up the subject of a new caliber or rifle you are told we can not afford that. And it is not just changes to the uniform rather that the Army is getting rid of the ACU in favor of a new muliticam style uniform.
However, the UCP has proven to be very poor at concealment in most terrain types, and really should be replaced.
Scorpion pattern development has already been paid for, so there's no additional cost in that regard, and battle uniforms wear out with use and need to be replaced, anyway. So, the cost over and above what would be incurred by sticking with the UCP is probably too little to be of consequence. The cost penalty is certainly not billions of dollars.
Comment
-
-
The real problem will be for whatever poor allies we have that end up with surplus ACU's. It's like fluorescent grey. There had to be somebody working for the enemy in the adoption of that colossal abortion of a pattern.
Multicam was already around then, and proved to be better than high vis grey, but they went with hi vis grey anyway.
When you factor in the costs of gear, multiple sets of uniforms per soldier, it can get out of hand quickly.
1,105,301 Active, National Guard, and Reserve soldiers...
x 4 issue uniforms @ $60 per set of trousers and blouse = $66,318,060
IOTV body armor cover in new camo pattern, $385 per for just half the force = $425,540,885
ACH helmet covers = $5,000,000
Patrol Caps = $17,000,000
MC Gore tex ECWS jackets = $149,000,000
MC Gore tex ECWCS pants = $82,500,000
MC Poncho = $33,000,000
MC Poncho Liner = $33,000,000
MC Molle Vest = $81,500,000
MC Canteen Molle Pouches = $66,000,000
MC M4/M16 mag pouches = $120,000,000
MC Utility Pouches = $33,500,000
MC SAW Pouches = $40,400,000
MC Compass/First Aid/Grenade pouches = $20,000,000
Looks like we hit over a billion so far easily, and I haven't even thrown in rucksacks or assault packs yet. This would be phased in over several years, not overnight.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by LRRPF52 View PostThe real problem will be for whatever poor allies we have that end up with surplus ACU's. It's like fluorescent grey. There had to be somebody working for the enemy in the adoption of that colossal abortion of a pattern.
Multicam was already around then, and proved to be better than high vis grey, but they went with hi vis grey anyway.
When you factor in the costs of gear, multiple sets of uniforms per soldier, it can get out of hand quickly.
1,105,301 Active, National Guard, and Reserve soldiers...
x 4 issue uniforms @ $60 per set of trousers and blouse = $66,318,060
IOTV body armor cover in new camo pattern, $385 per for just half the force = $425,540,885
ACH helmet covers = $5,000,000
Patrol Caps = $17,000,000
MC Gore tex ECWS jackets = $149,000,000
MC Gore tex ECWCS pants = $82,500,000
MC Poncho = $33,000,000
MC Poncho Liner = $33,000,000
MC Molle Vest = $81,500,000
MC Canteen Molle Pouches = $66,000,000
MC M4/M16 mag pouches = $120,000,000
MC Utility Pouches = $33,500,000
MC SAW Pouches = $40,400,000
MC Compass/First Aid/Grenade pouches = $20,000,000
Looks like we hit over a billion so far easily, and I haven't even thrown in rucksacks or assault packs yet. This would be phased in over several years, not overnight.
However. The uniforms are purchased by the Joe's unless they are in SF or the Rangers.
And, the other stuff is issued and returned to be re-issued.
And, unless something has changed, some of these items are probably not issued to someone who isn't Combat Arms.
I believe we are at the end of the capabilities of a kinetic energy weapon unless something very dramatic happens in terms of propellant. A propellant that takes up half the space, gives twice the velocity with half the pressure. Then you will see a new carbine / rifle.
LR55
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by LR1955 View PostI believe we are at the end of the capabilities of a kinetic energy weapon unless something very dramatic happens in terms of propellant. A propellant that takes up half the space, gives twice the velocity with half the pressure. Then you will see a new carbine / rifle.:: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::
Comment
-
-
I agree with most of what Gene said, but if they are truly serious about increasing the range capability as per PEO Soldier, I think we could get a new rifle and LMG even without an advance in propellant technology.
It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the Caliber Configuration Study, and the CLAWS/LDAM programs.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by LR1955 View PostLR52:
However. The uniforms are purchased by the Joe's unless they are in SF or the Rangers.
And, the other stuff is issued and returned to be re-issued.
And, unless something has changed, some of these items are probably not issued to someone who isn't Combat Arms.
I believe we are at the end of the capabilities of a kinetic energy weapon unless something very dramatic happens in terms of propellant. A propellant that takes up half the space, gives twice the velocity with half the pressure. Then you will see a new carbine / rifle.
LR55
I agree the science has just about maxed out for powder and cased ammunition rifles. However, the military has yet to take advantage of it.
The M249 SAW is an inadequate rifle using an inadequate round.
LRRPF52 makes a great argument as to why the 5.56 is an adequate carbine round for the common grunts. However, it's not adequate for an LMG or DMR."Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by LR1955 View PostLR52:
However. The uniforms are purchased by the Joe's unless they are in SF or the Rangers.
And, the other stuff is issued and returned to be re-issued.
And, unless something has changed, some of these items are probably not issued to someone who isn't Combat Arms.
I believe we are at the end of the capabilities of a kinetic energy weapon unless something very dramatic happens in terms of propellant. A propellant that takes up half the space, gives twice the velocity with half the pressure. Then you will see a new carbine / rifle.
LR55
Certain numbers of combat arms units will have multiple mag pouches, canteen pouches, SAW pouches, utility pouches, compass/first aid pouches, whereas support units will only have maybe one canteen pouch, one compass/first aid, and a few token pouches here and there that stay pristine from issue to turn-in.
I also didn't factor in Camlebak pouches, rucks, and assault packs. The Brits have already gone to their version of Multicam, but they only have 205,850 active duty soldiers.
How LSAT plays out will be interesting to see in terms of its implications on weapon development.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by cory View PostLRRPF52 makes a great argument as to why the 5.56 is an adequate carbine round for the common grunts. However, it's not adequate for an LMG or DMR.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by stanc View PostYes, he does. But, I think it'll be necessary for someone to actually build his proposed LMG so it can be demonstrated to be a "better mousetrap" than 5.56 and 7.62 machine guns."Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin
Comment
-
Comment