>ITT: Military equipment that's getting a little long

File: 1920x1080_b52-bomber.jpg (382KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1920x1080px

>>33853019
Easy.

File: 1446434715839.jpg (142KB, 912x607px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 912x607px

>>33853019
Eh, I honestly think the Abrams can keep on trucking for a while longer with continuous upgrades, the M109 on the other hand should've been replaced two decades ago.

File: Blackhawkq.jpg (2MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5184x3456px

>>33853019

The M1 Abrams is one of those things that's gotten the old Ship of Theseus treatment.

They've never switched it out for an entirely new model, but they've upgraded it so much that it's basically a completely different tank.

As long as they can integrate hardkill APS and some GLATGMs, it should be fine basically until the sun burns out.

File: XM2001_Crusader.jpg (45KB, 512x330px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 512x330px

>>33853234
Though I guess to be fair the M109A7 is basically like the Abrams with regards to >>33853257. Still think the Crusader should never have been cancelled.

>>33853320
This.

>mfw the US still has no MRSI

>>33853432
Should have gone with the MG3.

The marines.

File: download (1).jpg (9KB, 346x146px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 346x146px

>>33853019
Anything in pic related

File: uso-m60e6.jpg (362KB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 2048x1366px

>>33853432

Only if we bring back the M60.

File: 1471817817013.png (431KB, 556x644px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 556x644px

>>33853560

File: sea_king.jpg (21KB, 318x240px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 318x240px

>>33853019
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Advisor here.

By 2050 infantry and armored vehicles will be reduced by about 90% and relegated to police and security roles. Most infantry will be special forces, and most of the killing will be done by drones. Technology will be key. Small, highly trained, extremely advanced militaries will walk all over large militaries with technology even 5-10 years behind. Also I'm almost certain that active camouflage has been in use by no less than 4 countries since ~2005.

Also be prepared for the ungodly nightmare of warfare in Megacities.

>>33853234
Yeah the new Abrams with all the bells and whistles are a modern war machine compared to the first ones that where rolling around in places like Kuwait in the 90s
Military gear isn't like mobile phones where it gets replaced every 2 years by some kind of new shiny shit. It'll just keep going until it runs out of parts, becomes completely ineffective, gets upgraded dozens of times or someone drops a stupid huge sum of money into replacing everything for some reason or another.

File: 0e9.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>33853615
>Also I'm almost certain that active camouflage has been in use by no less than 4 countries since ~2005.

>>33853449
why? the 240 does the job perfectly. The MG3 has that autistic full length handguard for no fucking reason.
if we mix it with new manufacture, lightweight m60's we have the perfect gpmg mix

File: Nuri.jpg (45KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x427px

>>33853596
My country's main transport helo since the 60's. We've recently upgraded them for all weather ops. They'll probably keep flying for another 20 years at this rate.

>>33853093
Why do we still even have B52s when B1s have a higher payload and are faster?

File: download (2).jpg (5KB, 327x154px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 327x154px

>>33853595

>>33853685
b52s fly cheaper
and we already have the airframes

>>33853596
kek 35+ years of a replacement program and we are only now getting close to retiring the damn things.

File: 1483390744783.jpg (154KB, 557x595px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 557x595px

>>33853689

File: b52-silhouette-600x400.jpg (18KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x400px

>>33853685
Big, slow, iconic silhouette. People still remember the crazy bombing campaigns during Vietnam and those 1 hour alert periods to nuke russia at the drop of a hat.

>>33853685
People in mud houses with no SAM system in their backyards aren't exactly complaining that they didn't get hit by the most fancy, modern ordinance
Sometimes the newest, shiniest thing isn't the solution to a really old, low tech problem that you just need a few acres of annoying cunts that need to be blown up

U2
B52
KC 135
C 130
T38
CH 47
most of these reportedly won't be retired until 2050, at the age of 90+

File: 1493834563086.png (1MB, 1367x1532px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1367x1532px

>>33853019
Replaced or updated?

Abrams does fine at breaking lines and blowing shit up.

Course an active protection system here, some lighter but more efficient armor there, maybe an updated electronics, fine tune the engine, a mini-fridge holding diet cherry cola, all that good stuff would be really nice.

File: USMarines_AAV_Iraq_apr_2004_116_hires.jpg (761KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 1280x960px

>>33853748

>>33853685
Operating costs and the ability to have a tail gun if they decided they wanted them again.

>>33853772
fun fact about tail guns, the b52 is the largest aircraft to ever have an air-to-air kill

File: images (1).jpg (7KB, 258x195px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 258x195px

>>33853707

>>33853432
The 240b is still a perfectly good weapon system the mg3 is a waste of ammo if we really want a better 7.62x51 LMG the MK48 is the best way to go.

>>33853019
What would you replace it with?

-It withstands the attacks from most of the outdated Russian equipment
-Nothing in the market is impenetrable and 100% safe against modern equipment
-Symmetrical engagements result in the favor of the first one who locates the enemy

Optic-electronics and ERA upgrades cover most of these requirements, I'm pretty sure that they are here to stay for a long time with upgrades.

>>33853622
This.

Abram's will be around until its basic design and frame is unable to accommodate upgrades, which will be a long fucking time from now.

It speaks volumes about the failure of the low silhouette t series Soviet tanks, and their move to a more western design because of it.

>>33853019
>M1A2 SEPv3 needs replaced
With what, pray tell?

>>33854025

MLRS is fine, been augmented with himars

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIMARS

Literally everything the US uses
>M16
>Abrams
>F35
The Sig P320 is a step in the right direction thank god.

>>33854067

>kraut pistol
>good

>>33853942
Dank new kraut 130mm incoming, Abrams can't even mount the L/55 without a redesign of the gun laying system.

New turret/fcs/gun laying system and the 130mm. Plus the swolest Negros to reload the damn thing.

>>33853942
Thats not a SEPv3.

>>33854165
M1A2 can already kill any armored vehicle on the planet with the 120mm, what would be the point of getting the 130?

File: tmp_7605-cREPCbK_d645000575.jpg (69KB, 640x497px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 640x497px

>>33854165
>abrams can't do 130mm
Abram's already tested with a 140mm bruh.

>>33853685
in addition to what others have said, B 52 has something like 2,000 more miles in range, and I think I read it's better at long duration missions, but I'm not sure why outside of range, if true.

>>33854171
I'm aware, however since that is the next upgrade he's implying that it is somehow inadequate and needs replacing.

>>33854165
>130mm
When it happens lemme know.
>Can't even mount the L/55
It doesn't need to, penetration with DU darts is the same as a Kraut tungsten dart out of the longer barrel.
>New turret
For what purpose?
>New FCS/gun laying system
Such as? FCS is fine.

>>33854190
130mm has significantly higher performance. Poses a problem for the Chally and Abrams as the cannon will be designed to plop into a leo 2

>>33854193
Dunno how it stacks up against the new German 130.

>>33853432

Why? It doesn't lag behind what everyone else is fielding and it's ridiculously reliable.

>>33854248
>Dunno how it stacks up against the new German 130.

Irrelevant, as it can accommodate the size of an upgun.

125 to 130 is far, far less than up to 140

>>33854221
>http://defense-update.com/20160614_rheinmetall-ups-tank-firepower-with-new-130mm-gun.html

>It doesn't need to, penetration with DU darts is the same as a Kraut tungsten dart out of the longer barrel.

M256 is beefed up and higher pressure than the L/44. Its effectively L/55 performance when using DU.


It would need a new turret as the cannon will likely demand an auto loader

File: I am become death, destroyer of worlds.png (887KB, 656x615px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 656x615px

>>33854259
CATTB had a different turret than and was simply a testbed, not ever designed as a 140mm production tank.

Krauts tried the same thing.

>>33854285
No shit man, it was a feasibility study, and it was feasible, just not worth the cost.

File: 140mm testbed.jpg (260KB, 780x376px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 780x376px

>>33854285
The fuck? That's not the picture I chose.

>>33853320
Is the Crusader that thing that was featured on Future Weapons?

File: 1493854292433.jpg (245KB, 1200x714px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1200x714px

>>33854308
Conclusion was it was overkill vs current generation of tanks and the tradeoff in ammo capacity was not worth it. I was just referring the upgun accommodation.

The T-14 basically pulled a MiG-25 on the krauts. They've assumed its performance is way higher than what it properly is.

>>33853615
I TOLD YOU NIGGERS ABOUT THE MEGA-CITIES!!!

File: 1486967425345.jpg (49KB, 600x959px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x959px

>>33853615
>tfw innamegacity techjihadis vs govt drones/super soldier on 3d liveleak

Can't wait until retirement senpai

>>33854248
>130mm has significantly higher performance.
And again, why do you need "significantly higher performance" when your current gun can kill any armored vehicle on the planet that it can see?

>>33854381
Juicy DOD contracts, planned M1A3 upgrades, Krauts overreacting to the T-14

>>33853615
What's the go with future warfare, i was browsing youtube and came across some presentations on 'mega city warfare' it's seems like the buzzword that modern military is focusing on.

It makes sense though, i wonder how much the world has urbanised compared to 1940s

>>33853748
To be fair, a modern C-130J is essentially a completely different airplane than a Vietnam-era C-130E

File: chally 2 in a burka.jpg (149KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x720px

>>33854406
Curious how the "megacity" AFVs will look like.

>>33853704
Factually false, B1s do heavy sortie loads in every war we use them in, but because the airframes are a tad newer, and more suited to conventional precision bombing, the B1 has lower operational costs than a B52.

I think it does tend to have more downtime for maintenance though.

>>33853432
Are those ALICE pouches??

>>33853569
Didn't Lithuania or some other small random European country just adopt the new 60 as their primary??

>>33853569
M60 will always be inferior to the M240

>>33854499
E3 and E4 are superior as an infantry GPMG

>>33854512
Says someone who fired neither. I'd always take a M240 over a 60.

>>33854585
Weight

>>33853748

It's because the C-130's airframe has been perfected. Nobody complains about using the 1911 even though at this point its design is a century old.

>>33854190

The 120mm does not reliably penetrate its own armour, and probably not the Armata's armour either.

>>33854606
Field stripping a M60 is a nightmare compared to the M240. Also the parts on the M60 wear faster. M240 handles better.

>>33854512

The later revisions of the M60 are still somewhat fragile and finicky compared to the M240 but I'll give you that it is easier to use standing since a lot of the weight is shifted to the rear.

>>33854406
Just imagine the nightmare of having to clear a fucking 70 story building that goes a city block in every direction. You are talking miles of floorspace to clear. Even a two story 3 bedroom mudhut in Pakistan is a motherfucker of a chore to clear. Oh and it's likely been rigged with a shitload of IEDS and entrenched fighting positions. Oh, and when that's done, congradulations... you have 200 more to clear. Sound fun?

And no, you can't just blow the fucker down, it has a substantial dollar value attached to it. It would be similar to sinking an aircraft carrier. You can't do that without expecting a tactical nuke in response. I mean Jesus Christ dude, the mere THOUGHT of having to clear a skyscraper full of insurgents makes me want to vomit. I'd rather be in the first wave at Omaha, or the trenches at Verdun. Can you imagine the piles of bodies at the bottom of the stairweels? Fuck.

>>33854636
I can't comment, never held either. Only belt fed I've ever shot and played with was been a PKM.

bretty gud. Comfy gun

>>33854629
Can't really make a comment as penetration and armor figures are both classified.

>>33854668
iirc isn't it about 30 dudes lost to take a well defended, average family house. Its going to take triple that..Just to take one section of a floor. Plus you cannot call in air strikes, tanks or artillery support.

Literally cqb for days.

>>33854623
Well if the C-130 is a 1911, the C-130J is a .460 Rowland custom built 1911 with all the cool gadgets (Red dot, match trigger, cerakote...). Basically very good doing what it was designed to, but not much beyond that niche.

>>33854317
No, that was the NLOS-C, which did feature a few technologies from the Crusader. It was the one of the few vehicles from the FCS program that made it out of the concept phase but it still got axed. The cancellation of it and NLOS-M were probably the two biggest losses from that.

>>33853234
>the M109 on the other hand should've been replaced two decades ago.

So the M109A7 then, which is an Lincoln axe version of the M109A5.

>>33854486
Yeah, Denmark. But their entire army only needed like 10, so....

>>33853615
>HAHAHAHAHAHA. My unstoppable army of DRONES will defeat you!
>Detonates 1Mt nuke at 20,000 ft.
>Sheeeeeeeeeeeeet.

>>33854067
>Sig.

>>33854668
>Take over ventilation.
>Pump in VX.
>???
>Profit.

>>33855017
>endures a genocide in the following response of electronic warfare, sanctions, civil unrest, and even possible nuclear retaliation

File: b52_cas4.jpg (156KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1280x720px

>>33853685
The real answer is we still use B-52's because they have a lot of life left in their airframes, can carry a big payload, are viable as a stand off weapons platform and free up B-1, B-2 and in the future B-21 bombers for other uses.

>>33854743
Not>>33854636
But a PKM and 240 are nearly identical to each other, while the M60 is an even more retarded FG42 crossdressing as MG42.

>>33854392
By Krauts overreacting to the T-14 you mean Rheinmetall is using the T-14 to shill its new product.

>>33855034
I just pulled a Paul Atraedes on your ass, I detonated a nuke on my own territory well above the battlefield, and only causing your RC toys to fail. You'd have no merit to use nukes of your own as doing so to destroy military targets would make you the aggressor.

>>33854067
>America develops weapon platforms that can last decades through regularly scheduled upgrades
>Yurop develops weapon platforms that need replacing every 15 - 20 years

Lmaoing at you

>>33854743
or you know just get control of the HVAC and sweat them out after shutting off the water. Easy to get a building that size past human limits of survivability.

>>33853685
>B1
>bigger payload than b52
pick one

>>33853548
Is that an upgraded m113?
If it is, I'm disgusted.

>>33854381
better accuracy and range? Come on man, the Abrams' gun has limitations that can be improved on.

>>33855345
It's the latest Bradley.

>>33855054
>Nothownukewarfareworks.jpg

>>33855361
The 120mm is already accurate enough to hit a tank at over 5km and increasing bore size does not increase. Increasing the range of a direct fire cannon like is used on a tank requires increasing projectile speed. The 120mm is limited in this regard by barrel stresses and increasing the bore size does not alleviate that limitation.
Any range or accuracy improvements gained in the 130mm can be replicated in the 120mm.
The point of the 130mm cannon is to be able to use a heavier projectile than is currently used by Europe in their 120mm cannons. The US uses denser penetrators than Europe, so the increase isn't needed.

>>33853596
If you kill your enemies

>>33853615
>Implying they won't have walking "terminators" to clear skyscrapers. Or flying drones
>>33854406


It'll probably also bring back siege tactics

>>33853748
>2050, at the age of 90+

Fuck I'm gonna be old by then.

Shit

>>33854369
>wehrmacht soldier
>has G11, flak jacket and helmet mount
ok i want to know the artist of this

>>33855650
>>33854369
"Robots and Drones"

>>33853320
>we could have literally had crusaders in the middle east

>>33855711
>Triggered

>>33853685
Bigger payload? No.

>>33853615

This is almost the same thing as what Truman thought when he attempted to gut the army and scrap the entire navy for more bombers.

>>33854326
>The T-14 basically pulled a MiG-25 on the krauts. They've assumed its performance is way higher than what it properly is.
The 130 mm gun's performance is where the 140 mm anti-Soviet FST gun is.

>>33854392
>Juicy DOD contracts, planned M1A3 upgrades
The Abrams would require significant turret redesign that isn't in the cards for future upgrades.

>>33856287
>The Abrams would require significant turret redesign that isn't in the cards for future upgrades.

This. It's why the primary contender for gun replacement is the XM360 - essentially a lighter L44 that accepts higher chamber pressure while having ADL as standard.

>>33856158
Gutting all the infantry and getting rid of transport helicopters would be a good thing though

Gotta keep the armored ground vehicles, they are like the only actually important part of the military

File: B-52G_with_AGM-86B_ALCMs.jpg (1MB, 2820x1850px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2820x1850px

>>33853685
>when B1s have a higher payload

not a bigger nuclear payload which is still the B-52's mainstay

File: 003.jpg (486KB, 1971x1305px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1971x1305px

>>33855290
>>33856141
You two do realize the Bone has the highest payload in the entire airforce's armory right?

And if you mean actual size or nuke capability, all it takes is the removal of a single bulkhead to restore that on the bone

File: sa 80.jpg (54KB, 800x328px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x328px

>tfw we don't have any engineers good enough to build a replacement
>going to use this frankenstein forever as a constant reminder that germans are superior

File: 004.jpg (889KB, 1305x1971px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 1305x1971px

>>33856394
Take that wall out in the middle and you get nukes on the bone again. I will agree that nuke treaties are part of what keep the buff flying though.

File: 1471729124976.jpg (83KB, 500x758px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 500x758px

>>33853246
Delete this right now.

File: 9d83d2ae448bdc6453c19340c69cc0a5.jpg (92KB, 909x598px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 909x598px

>>33856340
>Gotta keep the armored ground vehicles, they are like the only actually important part of the military

>t. Pavel Grachev

>>33855936
>two triggers
Lmao

>>33856454
>Not shooting your gun upside down

What if you need the bullet to curve upwards?

>>33856424

and yet even if they did the B-52 would still be more effective at the nuclear strike role

>a B-52 slinging 20 stealth standoff missiles or decoys vs. a single B1 carrying 20 freefall bombs

Bonefags literally can't compete

>>33856396
Then you realize that B-1 payload is based on external stores and remember the reasons they arenot used.

We really need a new real cold war to be honest phamilia

File: 274.jpg (19KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x379px

>>33853432
>

>>33853652
Are you drunk?
The full length front of the MG3 is due to the barrel moving backwards with each shot. It's much easier to push the barrel into the forward ring when swapping barrels when it's full length, otherwise the barrel would have to be pushed THROUGH the front and pointing to the left before you could rotate the back in place.

>>33854273
>No relevant info in article, it's just a fluff piece
So again why switch to 130mm when our M829A4 does fine? Especially when it would require an entire redesign of the turret.

>M256 is the same with DU as the L/55
Thanks for repeating my point. That's because the Germans had to make a gun a full 11 calibers longer than our just to match our performance with their sub-par ammunition.

You've failed to provide an argument as to why the switch to 130mm is even needed.

>>33853438
Your right. We don't rely on one artillery piece, we rely on several + the air force to make sure we Fuck up an area as fast as possible. Nothing like a good Jdam with 81mm sprinkles on top

File: 7.62x54R.jpg (159KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 800x520px

>>33854372
Some of those have locks from 1800s.

>>33856858
>Nyet, rifle is fi-
Oh

File: Niinistö testaa uutta vehjettä.jpg (334KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 700x467px

>>33856858
Imagine the weight of that motherfucker. The rifle weighs about four kilos without any accessories.

File: Historical_global_urban_-_rural_population_trends.png (33KB, 400x291px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x291px

>>33854406
>i wonder how much the world has urbanised compared to 1940s

File: 1425342901095.jpg (390KB, 1280x1556px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1280x1556px

>>33854406
>>33854416

I like to think assualt gunning down building inside huge cities is what the DoD had in mind when they gave the Paladin SPG the BUSK(Bradley Urban Survival Kit) mod

>Pally crewman's face when going full StuG to liberate New Taipei in 2030

>>33854474
Yes alice was still common place even in the 2003 invasion of iraq and a bit further there was a period where guys would wear both molly and alice at the same time.

>>33853019
I really don't think the best tank on earth needs to be replaced quite yet but that still doesn't stop them from completely upgrading them every 15 years or so.

The M1A2 was already head and shoulders above anything it would ever be put up against and the M1A3 insures that will continue for the foreseeable future.

>>33854636
having used both, I would choose the 240 because it was much more stable to fire.

>>33853548
JJ is that you in the BC hatch?

>>33854416
gd thats one sexy bitch

>>33853615

Justify your commentary.

File: IMG_1626.jpg (385KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 2048x1536px

>>33860478
How do you expect a LARP'er to do that?

>>33860506

I just want him to explain why the fuck you would invade and attempt to conquer a city that difficult when even as early WW2 people went fucking AROUND difficult terrain when they learned it was pointless fighting over it.

The battle of Berlin was LITERALLY just about capturing some useful shit (uranium supplies) people (scientists / Hitler) and the political high ground (yea, berlin is mine now mmkay) Tonnes of German urban terrain was just fucking BYPASSED.

Also, I'm looking forward to aircraft fucking durrminatin the skees n puttin da warheads on da forheads with the level of shit thats going to be flying up to meet them - drones, multiple sensor missiles, railgun fire and lasers.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (396KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1600x900px

>>33853432
There's literally no better GPMG than the MAG and its derivatives.

Abrams, but only because of fuel consumption and engine maintenance issues.

The M109 is one of the worst SPGs in service right now.

HMMWVs, especially the armored models.

Avenger SHORAD is garbage but on the other hand the US doesn't actually care.

All of y'all talking up the M60 have never had to field strip one or change a barrel. The M60 is marginally better as an assault weapon because of weight/balance but that's not enough.

Anything with a 3-round burst instead of full auto.

The PKM - heavy, bad balance, non disintegrating belt, awkward feed system.

The 7.62x54R cartridge, there is literally nothing good about it.

>>33860671
A mild case of dunning kruger.

>>33853569
>>>33853432
>Only if we bring back the M60.

More like the US should've just adopted the MAG-58 in the first place and saved itself a shit ton of time and frustration.

>>33854138
>sig
>kraut
Its swiss you mong

>>33856397
>Heckler and Koch were owned by the Brits at the time

>>33853689
Ore wa ochinchin

File: Joe takes the Mega-One Mega-Tube to work.jpg (145KB, 480x512px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 480x512px

>Megacities
>Megactiies
>Megacities
Everyone here in possession of a firearm is being cybertracked by Judge-computers this very moment. Conspiring to discuss firearms is a federal offense: 20 years in the cubes


But seriously, how will law enforcement affect military actions in megacities? The USA dumps its military stuff on local PD's all the time, and the Chinese have all sorts of shit within the interior to keep the populace pacified. A few thousand armed patrol officers in a city with good knowledge of it's layout is nothing to sneeze at. At the very least they can rally locals and train them in basic firearm handling.

>>33863441
>But seriously, how will law enforcement affect military actions in megacities?

By not having megacities and keeping a good active militia.

>>33863441
They'd be more useful for intelligence gathering and crowd control than the actual fighting.

File: The Ma Deuce Is Amazing.jpg (95KB, 505x960px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 505x960px

I swear if some fag mentions the ma deuce

>>33854416
That's my wife. You like her smashing dress?

File: Capture+_2017-05-05-07-14-16.png (67KB, 656x428px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 656x428px

>>33861149
?

File: F-16 rotate.jpg (208KB, 1280x914px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1280x914px

>>33865749

>>33855054
You just destroyed your own country's infrastructure, congrats you have bigger problems now.

>>33860584
make the bitch lighter though you ever haul that dam thing around true you love it when things go to shit and cleaning it but dam is it bulky