New Army uniform but no new rifle/cartridge?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Army uniform but no new rifle/cartridge?



    Billions on a new uniform. yet we are told that there is no money for a new rifle let alone a new caliber.
  • Michael
    Warrior
    • Jan 2012
    • 353

    #2
    Yep.

    'They're very pretty, Colonel, but can they fight?'
    General Pinkley, Dirty Dozen
    I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.
    - Voltaire

    Comment

    • stanc
      Banned
      • Apr 2011
      • 3430

      #3
      Originally posted by Trooper View Post
      What billions? The planned changes to the uniform should incur little, if any, additional cost.
      yet we are told that there is no money for a new rifle let alone a new caliber.
      Can you cite a source for that claim? I've never seen any official statement to that effect.

      Comment

      • stanc
        Banned
        • Apr 2011
        • 3430

        #4
        Originally posted by Michael View Post
        Yep.

        'They're very pretty, Colonel, but can they fight?'
        General Pinkley, Dirty Dozen
        I'd like to have two armies: one for display with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, staffs, distinguished and doddering Generals, and dear little regimental officers who would be deeply concerned over their General's bowel movements or their Colonel's piles, an army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country. The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage uniforms, who would not be put on display, but from whom impossible efforts would be demanded and to whom all sorts of tricks would be taught

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by stanc View Post
          What 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.
          Nothing 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. Plus a new PT uniform. Army Times has been running articles on this.

          Comment

          • stanc
            Banned
            • Apr 2011
            • 3430

            #6
            Originally posted by Trooper View Post
            Nothing 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.
            Well, the M4 carbine and 5.56 NATO ammo are at least usable (I think LRRPF52 considers them ideal. ), so replacing them does not seem a particularly urgent matter.

            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


            • #7
              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

              • LR1955
                Super Moderator
                • Mar 2011
                • 3355

                #8
                Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                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.
                LR52:

                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

                • BluntForceTrauma
                  Administrator
                  • Feb 2011
                  • 3897

                  #9
                  Originally posted by LR1955 View Post
                  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.
                  Probably one of the best summations of where we're really at in the small-arms world. Moreso even than cased vs. caseless, the propellant is the issue.
                  :: 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

                  • stanc
                    Banned
                    • Apr 2011
                    • 3430

                    #10
                    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

                    • cory
                      Chieftain
                      • Jun 2012
                      • 2985

                      #11
                      Originally posted by LR1955 View Post
                      LR52:

                      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 only need one acronym to make my argument. SAW

                      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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by LR1955 View Post
                        LR52:
                        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 was thinking about the initial issue of uniforms at Basic Training CIF for new recruits, then balanced the TA-50 across combat arms versus soft skills. Example:

                        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

                        • stanc
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 3430

                          #13
                          Originally posted by cory View Post
                          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.
                          Yes, 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.

                          Comment

                          • cory
                            Chieftain
                            • Jun 2012
                            • 2985

                            #14
                            Originally posted by stanc View Post
                            Yes, 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.
                            Alright, Stanc I think I know how we can reach a happy medium on this subject. You fund it and I'll build it. HAHAHAHAH
                            "Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

                            Comment

                            • stanc
                              Banned
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 3430

                              #15
                              Heh, heh. Somehow I doubt that I have enough $$$$ to fund development of a belt-fed Grendel.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X