New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to di

>>33913056
They'll realize 5.56 is the best and nothing will really change. Maybe they'll upgrade the M4's bolt and gas system to handle M855A1 better.

File: la-fg-china-military-pla-q-and-a-20150902.jpg (1MB, 2048x1395px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1395px

>>33913056
About time. 5.56 is a meme caliber for meme armies.

>>33913068
>best
>not moving down to 4x45mm
>not replacing 7.62 RFN with 6.5 American
A damned Shame, famalam.

File: 1468878452403.png (797KB, 812x806px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 812x806px

>Some of the concerns Scales said he believes are driving military leaders to finally look at an alternative to the 5.56 mm and the M16/M4 include:

>— Improvements in adversaries’ body armor, which make the 5.56 mm less lethal.

>— Current adversaries such as the Islamic State terror group and others using bigger rounds with more reach against U.S. troops, creating an overmatch.

>— Jamming problems with M16/M4 variants that continue to plague the design.

It's like a giant shitpost.

>>33913056
6.5 creedmoor ar' s are the future. I guess.

>>33913107
seriously. I don't know why retards insist that US adversaries have better range capabilities. They fucking don't. Sure, one insurgent might have a PKM or a Dragunov and can hit our riflemen while they can't hit back. That's why we've got the fucking M240 and DMR for.
>>33913113
>battle rifle
>2017
shameful

>>33913107
>>33913136
Probably so they can play like they really need it to get the funding.

>>33913074
HOW MANY CAMOS DOES THE PLA HAVE ?

>>33913056
>ArmyTimes.com

Lol. The ArmyTimes is like a monetized rumor mill/hyperbole spreader to sucker in guillable FNGs.

They do this every 5 years, and they still haven't decided.

>>33913074
Multi-cam remix.

An interesting thing the article mentions is that the weapons that are being tested are an "unconventional design" and that they are not currently commercially available. Which means they are testing a rifle that we might not even know exists.
>Unconventional
So by that, do they mean something that isn't based off of the M4 or SCAR? Interesting. The fact that they're testing rounds like 260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, .264 USA is pretty neat. I haven't even fucking heard of .264 USA, sounds like a meme, but who knows.

>>33913225
as many as they can download

File: img_1425.jpg (206KB, 1200x854px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1200x854px

>>33913056
Interesting, because SOCOM is testing 6.5 Creedmoor.

>>33913156
Well duh. It's about neverending corporate welfare.

File: 1492847643839.jpg (115KB, 475x528px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 475x528px

>>33913056
it's literally the Pentagon saying "we need moar taxpayer money for dem programs." As >>33913107 pointed out, their "complaints" are 100% bullshit, especially the ones about enemies using bigger, more effective rounds and muh strawberry jam. I'm an AK-fag but I'm don't buy that the AR is ineffective to the point of uselessness and we've only noticed after the platform has become wildly prolific over the past half-century.

>>33913068
>They'll realize 5.56 is the best

No, they'll realize it's good enough.

And that replacing it would be too expensive.

>>33913136
>That's why we've got the fucking M240

and how often is that issued at squad level

Is this the same "US to adopt battle rifle" article that was being discussed a few weeks ago where half the sources were H&K shareholders?

I thought the armed forces switched over to the M4 because there were more intense short ranged fire fights than there was fire fights at over 800m

>>33913329
Underrated comment. Enjoy the (you).

>>33913460
But then Afghanistan happened.

File: 1478600923408.jpg (214KB, 345x336px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 345x336px

>>33913329
I audibly chuckled, take your (You)

File: reaction243.png (452KB, 720x900px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 720x900px

>>33913329
Bravo, man

>>33913488
Does the US really need a new service rifle every time a conflict with different geography occurs? You'd think they would swap to quick change barrel systems by now.

>>33913056
As long as we are a NATO member it wont happen. 5.56 and 7.62 aint going no where anytime soon, my dudes.

File: QGW1ekj-660x307.png (180KB, 660x307px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 660x307px

>>33913305
Its LITERALLY the LSAT they're testing.

They're currently testing whether a 6.5 Grendel Telescoped is a meme or not, even though it's got a 2K round barrel life at best.

They're thinking that the US will be able to have troops shooting at 1200 meters because fucking welfare queens with fucking ACOGS are also primo fucking marksman as well.

>>33913056

So the reason ARs are cheap...is because they're shit and their bullets are 2small?

Holy shit, this changes everything. Always knew those fragile plastic popguns were toys for manchildren.

lol no

File: Ha.jpg (294KB, 868x994px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 868x994px

>>33913329

File: Antoine-Fauveau-Cuirass-700x500.jpg (55KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x500px

>>33913056
needs to make a hole this big

The complaints about 5.56mm are retarded and read like something a high schooler would come up with after browsing wikipedia. The ignorance (or maybe willful ignorance in order to get a lobbying job) of the top decision makers never ceases to amaze me.

The basis of all modern infantry combat rests upon achieving a high volume of rapid, combat accurate fire. Achieving this suppression advantage quickly and being able to keep it sustained is increasingly important as the range at which the fighting is happening decreases. 5.56mm is able to be used for quick, combat accurate and effective (repeatable 1x1 meter radius around target) suppression. Bigger rounds and a battle rifle mentality slow down the rate of fire for a lot of reasons. Throughout the history of firearms, when it comes to large open warfare, a high volume of decently accurate fire is better than a low volume attempting to have extremely accurate fire.

>Enemy GPMGs and full caliber rifles shoot further.

No shit. On the occasion where an enemy has managed to get a longer range weapon set up favorably for themselves, US troops already their own GPMGs to counter, lay down adequate suppression, and support the infantry unit as it moves towards the enemy position. Once the distance has been closed within even 500 or 600 meters, the balance of firepower immediately shifts back to the favor of 5.56mm.

About the biggest failure Afghanistan showed in infantry TO&Es was that integrated designated marksmen with full power rifles could make a difference on the edge cases when precision, shoots that needed good fragmentation at 800+ meters were required. I think DMs need to be a permanent part of an infantry platoon organization.

>>33913056
telescoped ammo is where they need to go

>>33913107
>7.62 RFN
it moronic even going to 7.62 you still will not defeat modern body armor, A, the m4 rifle works great as far as I have seen if you clean the dam thing. now then I wish we could adopt a Kel tec rfb rifle that would be aswome (one that wokrs mind you)

>>33913406
never thats a 2 per platoon weapon for good reason it heavy and a bitch to maneuver with

>>33913659
*
Functionally, in combat conditions it is optics making the biggest difference anyway. Arming troops with 5.56mm rifles with good optics increases their combat accuracy. Improve and take that accuracy out to as far as you can until 5.56mm simply stops reliably fragmenting.

An average soldier with a 5.56mm, 14.5 inch barrel, and a say variable 1-6x optic is going to be able to functionally under combat conditions shoot accurately further than somebody average armed with a 7.62x54r rifle and iron sights.

And then we get into all the other shit where this money can be spent, like upgrading platoon level drones, and more accurate navigation equipment to allow for precision CAA and CAS. Because when you can call in accurate and fast 82mm mortar rounds, it really doesn't matter what your small arms are.

>>33913106
No, they're moving the other way. .264USA for assault rifles and .338NM for machine guns.

>>33913074
i love the bright red flag on the side and shitting flick thier wearing god they have no idea how mcuh they will get wreked in real conflcit

>>33913406
They are issued at the platoon level as standard. And since platoons go out as a group, they have it with them.

I don't know how many times I've had non-mil types baffle me by thinking squads commonly just operate in complete isolation.

>>33913444
no

>>33913601
quality post, keep it up

>>33913329
kek nice

>>33913709
This.

Hell, we had tpe mk.48s on my last hitch, enough for each rifle squad to get at least one, and the 3rd squad of each platoon got two.

Plain english, we had more 7.62 mgs than 5.56 ones.

>>33913056
>New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56

Muh TUBLING!

>>33913074
>About time. 5.56 is a meme caliber for meme armies.

Agree. A huge cluster fuck of post Vietnam US political influence on MATO that has weakened the western militaries.

File: _80314340_16x-2015-003-16xafghancomoration-056.jpg (110KB, 976x549px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 976x549px

>>33913704
You realize that pretty much any military includes wearing partial bright and/or shiny stuff during garrison and photo-ops?

>>33913760
The company I was attached to was also issued Mk.48s for evaluation. And since they didn't get their M240s taken away, they ended up carrying the M240s and the Mk.48s on larger operations.

This is in addition to having DMs armed with EBRs.

Plus SMAW-Ds handed out at the platoon level, which had an effective firing range of like 1000 meters, which was far beyond anything we encountered even in Afghanistan.

More long range (800+ meter effective) firepower carried by several fold than anybody we encountered. And at closer ranges, the service rifle and M249 volume of fire was exactly what was needed. Having been caught in close range, dismounted ambushes, being able to throw up the highest possible volume of fire superseded any other concern. Being "ambushed" by something 800 meters away is a totally different and relatively more relaxed situation where the DM and the CCTs did the heavy lifting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc

>>33913885
>Wow a guy shooting a rechambered M240 into nothing

How informative.

>>33913659
>I think DMs need to be a permanent part of an infantry platoon organization
You mean it's not? I would think it's common sense a squad loadout on desert combat to have one or two guys with a .308 rifle.

>>33913922
It's more than just a re chambered M240.

File: m21.jpg (39KB, 600x315px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x315px

>>33913926
It's one of my biggest frustrations that, no it is not. Designated marksmen exist in their own separate recon platoons, but not normally integrated into the platoon itself.

In Afghanistan, the longer ranges created an urgency for a modified TO&E to include designated marksmen officially into platoons. They started out by plain out arming guys with vintage M14s and M21s. Eventually, they made the EBR the standard rifle.

In Iraq, I don't believe their was ever an official platoon level DM program, but you can definately find pictures of line guys armed with M14s and M21s, so there was some unit level un-official modification to the TO&E.

I truly will never understand why the DM program has so much resistance, because it adds a valuable component to the combined arms loadout of a platoon. I have heard that the 82nd Airborne is hanging onto some 7.62mm SCARs, so maybe, finally, the Army learned that having DMs permanently is a good idea.

>>33913990
Many armorers lost a lot of hair working on those EBR abominations

>>33913659
>>33913692
plz feed baby some stat sources on these claims

Meanwhile, terrorists not interested in replacing the AK-47, say it "works just fine" and "is perfectly reliable."

>>33914012
Post WW2 testing that looked at the outcome of firefights, determining that a high volume of fire was a deciding factor to winning, and supporting the eventual adoption of smaller calibers after WW2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Purpose_Individual_Weapon#Project_SALVO

FM7-8, the core of infantry combat relies on suppression. Suppression is the basis of combat, whoever creates a higher volume of effective suppressive fire is able to move while at the same time pinning the enemy in an unfavorable position. https://www13.shu.edu/offices/rotc/upload/FM-7-8.pdf

Fragmentation article about 5.56mm M855. It's not totally comprehensive or clear, but a start. The fragmentation starts to be 100% reliable out of a 14.5 inch barrel at about 350 meters, but the round is still effective further out for suppressive purposes, even if the terminal ballistics start to suffer.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/11/23/long-barrel-short-fragmentation-threshold-trade-off-14-5-20-barrels/

The difference in effective velocity and effective range between 7.62x51 and 7.62x54r weapons is something you can look up, but in short it's a draw on ballistic data for functionality's sake.

For practical accuracy under combat conditions being increased by quality optics, I can't find the hit probability and grouping table I used to have for the ACOG, but it should be an intuitive connection that quality and easy to use optics lead to better accuracy.

>>33914011
They are quite cancerous.

My thinking has been for years that the military should have adopted a mil-spec AR-10 and integrated into the platoon as a DMR. The M110 looks nice, but it is slowpoke by fucking decades, and even then the M110 is sitting around as a recon/sniper's weapon and not going into a permanent DM program for line units.

File: 3d pepe.jpg (50KB, 421x421px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 421x421px

>>33913704
tfw Modern China will never enter a war with another industrialized nation so you will never see it get its shit wrecked

>>33913598
>>>33913305
>Its LITERALLY the LSAT they're testing.
>They're currently testing whether a 6.5 Grendel Telescoped is a meme or not, even though it's got a 2K round barrel life at best.
>They're thinking that the US will be able to have troops shooting at 1200 meters because fucking welfare queens with fucking ACOGS are also primo fucking marksman as well.

>Cancel a revolutionary weapon (XM25) because 'it's too heavy'
>Go back to age old 'redesign the same weapon' our riflemen must shoot 600+ meters! Bullshit that the peace time military has always believed.
>Base this on data from Afghanistan, where mountainous terrain favors long sightlines and insurgents intentionally engage from extended rage because it's less dangerous

We're back on Mr. Military Industrial Complex's wild ride.

Where is the salvo, hyperburst, caseless ammo type shit. Where's the airbursting munitions damnit. Revolutionize infantry weapons, stop reinventing the fucking wheel.

>>33915372
>airbursting munitions
The XM25 will be officially adopted this year

>>33915372
You're wrong my dude. That airburst shit had horrible reliability problems.

>>33915454
It worked great actually.

>>33915422
>>>33915372 (You)
>>airbursting munitions
>The XM25 will be officially adopted this year


Funny you say that.

https://kitup.military.com/2017/05/xm25.html
An inspector general review of the program was pretty damning and the decided to cut it.

>>33915422
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/05/06/army-kills-contract-for-shoulder-fired-airburst-weapon.html

It is dead for now.

>>33915501
>>33915514
GOD DAMN IT, IT WAS A FUCKING GAME CHANGER

>>33915521
We are in agreement here, sir. Army is back to its usual faggotry, despite figuring out in the 80's that the rifle is pretty much at the end if it's life cycle.

>>33915550
I bet you they're gonna try to shoehorn the technology into a 40mm grenade.

>>33915565
Hey, maybe they can finally get some use out of the extendo capacity of the M320 with a grenade using airburst shit in it.

Stick an optic on top of the rifle that acts as the range finding optic and talks wirelessly to the grenade, and you're in business.

>>33913056
Remember that old thing about how amateurs think tactics and professionals think logistics?

The Army isn't going to drop 5.56 any time soon. The absolute fucking nightmare it would be from a logistics perspective is mindboggling.

>>33913074
...Doesn't chingchong use 5.8mm? So the same idea?

File: 1488070687470.jpg (22KB, 459x278px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 459x278px

>>33915781
>Chingchong
I kek'd out loud.

File: Goose-Goosing.jpg (23KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 620x413px

>>33913329

File: 1470932285738.jpg (133KB, 527x674px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 527x674px

>>33914077
AK-47? More like Lee-Enfield.

>>33915736
But logistics is literally part of why they want to ditch 5.56.

A big part of LSAT is having a round that makes ammo carried by riflemen compatible with marksmen and LMGs, without increasing the load on the rifleman. It's lighter than 7.62, almost as light as 5.56, you get economies of scale for manufacture, it's cheaper to transport, easier to plan around, more flexible in the field.

In addition to the nominal goal of the project - roughly halving the weight of the LMG.

>>33913488
It's like they forgot everything they ever learned in Iraq...

>>33913598
The missing piece here is DInGO.

>>33913704
>he thinks that the PLA would be stupid enough to go into battle wearing bright red patches

>>33913659
Or you could throw smart HE (with smart fuses) at them in those edge cases.

Pike, Boomerang, Uncle Carl (unguided, but that can be fixed), and several other options exist. for those situations. They just need to be procured and distributed to units fighting in open areas with limited support.

72 grain bullets from 20 inch high twist barrels

>>33915422
The manufacturer failed to deliver a tiny 20-weapon order on time and the program got canned.

>>33915372
The caseless version of LSAT supposedly worked, but was too expensive to consider for full production, so it was dropped when the LSAT program was superseded by the CTSAS program.

>>33915565
The Pike is already there, and has over twice the range, with laser guidance.

Yeah, it's heavier than a 25mm round, but you can use an existing GL (just not a M-203, because it doesn't swivel).

>>33913056
>new rifle

But why?

Maybe they want to switch to .243 Win for the velocity and armor penetration? But 5.56x45 has great velocity with 20" barrels.

If they weren't retarded they would ditch the heavy profile and change the M203 cuts to use more material in that area instead of less.

>>33916810
how about a fluted barrel so it has great heat dissipation and some of the rigidity of the larger profile?

The japs used a 6.5mm bullet in china and the pacific, and it was widely regarded as being under powered and weak compared to 7.62

Don't see why we're considering going back to it.

We really should go towards a high ballistic coefficient 6.5 cartridge with armor penetration capability(like having a 70 grain 800 Brinell penetrator tip).

>>33916876
The chingchongnippon were well aware themselves, and were replacing the standard 6.5x50mm Type 38 rifle with the 7.7x58mm Type 99 rifle.

Both were used during WWII.

Also,
>making cartridge considerations while only posting diameter or any other specifications
9mm Gyurza is a dramatically different beast than 9mm Makarov.

File: 15 - 1.jpg (70KB, 530x724px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 530x724px

>>33913622
Gotchu famalam.

>>33916970
>Reinvented by Lord_Nigfester for iFunny :)

>>33916989
Relax, I don't store pictures like these in my computer these days. A simple google search of Glock & Wesson gives you results everywhere.

>>33913056
The article makes it sound like the fix is in, and Big Army wants to go single-caliber with 6.5mm CTSAS.

I don't know if I like that; while it has its merits, the trade-off is a reduced combat load for the rifleman (unless it is offset by not having to carry a belt for the SAW gunner because his load just got a lot *llighter*).

>>33917175
We've seen this story repeatedly over the last ~150 years, with Big Army (and even more so the Marines) wanting every rifleman to achieve sniper accuracy at 1,000yds, despite a century of accumulated evidence that says that such combat is rare and that short-range, high-volume combat is the norm. Every time, it has led to grief, and then somebody comes up with an ad hoc intermediate round (.30 carbine, 5.56) that isn't really powerful enough, but is miles better than trying to force full-caliber rounds on the whole squad.

If there is any hope for a different outcome this time around, it lies in superior optics, particularly smart sights, that at least have a chance of making the common rifleman into a sniper up to 1,000m. Barring that, we're headed for the same old, sad story once again.

>>33913107
>islamic state terrorists use bigger rounds

like WHAT. They're all armed with 5.45 and 7.62x39 and we all know that 7.62x39 has shit ballistics and has less energy than a 5.45/5.56 at like 300m or more.

File: 1428027902680.jpg (26KB, 360x240px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 360x240px

>>33913068
>Change a gun to fit a shilled eco round that adds nothing good or significant to the rifle. A round which reaches well into the kpsi proof of the M4 and cuts the guns life which,by the way is just to get the bullet to reach M855s level of speed at 100 yards since it is made of a metal of less density than lead. ITs like a fucking shit tier M193, but at least M193 can actually penetrate armor unlike M855 or the A1.

>Hell the added barrel length and gas dwell time from an M16 would cut down malfunctions. The M4 was a mistake

That being said 5.56 does well for the engagement distances of 15 yards that Urban warfare takes place in, M16 with M193 and Mk262 will fill the void of door kicker and DMR

>>33916444
Oh, the "We want a single piece of equipment that somehow fulfills every contradictory requirement we have all at the same time."

How's that working out with the F-35?

Also, literally every complaint that the Army has about 5.56 would be helped by ditching the M4 and going back to long-barrel M-16A4s. Which would cost literally billions less than switching to a completely new rifle with a completely new round.

>>33917219
Because the same cartridge for LMG/SAW and rifleman is so contradictory.

Because technological advances have never made distinctions between weapons classes obsolete.

>>33916928
I bet the stuff they make those ceramic cutting inserts (indexable tooling, not carbide the gray or black stuff) out of would be great for penetrators.

Not very heavy though.

>>33913940
>>Thats no Moon!!!

>>33913789
Summer /k/

All this hand wringing because apparently we are never going to have another war outside of Afghanistan. Until we end up trying to re-stabalize fucking Caracas or something similar and everyone is bitching how their 6.5 rifles recoil too damn much and why did we ditch the 5.56?

Every single cent wasted on this shit would be better used by reducing the weight of coms gear and improving battery life for equipment. Boring as fuck, but it would keep more people (and their knees) alive.

>>33913225
all of them

>>33913691
>mfw in Finnish Army infantry there are two PKMs per 9-man squad, three squads per rifle platoon

File: 1486775752406.png (30KB, 657x651px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 657x651px

>>33918097
>mfw anon has no face

>>33918176
opsec

>>33917925
>coms and knees

This guy gets it.

>>33917925
Then the government isn't throwing money at Harris for the privilege of using their special sauce ANW2(tm) waveform.

>>33917219
It's working out quite fucking well for the f-35 you pleb

>>33918196
Comms, batteries, armor, nvg, boots (granted they did better later on for mountains), ifak, and better light infantry training in general for when vehicles are even more dangerous to be around but no lets focus on a rifle that for all its faults works well and is in wide use

>>33917925
How the fuck honestly are people having recoil issues in this day and age. Even .308 is pretty mild to me. And it's not like any part of our modern military doctrine gives a single shit about accurate fire anyways.

>>33918339
>Even .308 is pretty mild to me
Full auto in a lighter weight rifle after lugging it around for days.

Don't forget about the extra weight of the ammo.

>>33918373
Weight is a different thing entirely, I'm talking about recoil. Full-auto probably sucks but don't they teach against mag-dumping at 300m in the army?

>>33918383
>but don't they teach against mag-dumping at 300m in the army?

Uhhh.... How else are you supposed to react to an ambush again?

>>33913659
>US brings back larger cartridges
>Volley fire becomes a thing again as we try to compensate for slower rate of fire

My dick can only get so hard

>>33918402
T U R N A N D B U R N

>>33918339
This fucking retard...
>Recoil isn't a problem, .308 is mild.
Quick, successive fire with accurate follow up is standard military doctrine and common sense.
>Well ya it sucks, b-but just don't mag dump!
Take the cock out of your ear faggot, 5.56 kills real fucking well, and is light enough for a child to both kill and carry.
>But weight is a different matter
Not when talking about your main fucking infantry round. being able to go longer, go further, and stay in the fight due to dragging more with you is what counts.

Jesus fuck, this is an easy matter. Barrel swap for longer barrels to extend the range and velocity when needed. Keep the fucking platform, keep the round, put out mk318/mk262 rounds when you need to kill shit that doesn't have modern armor.

Holy fuck, why waste this time and money for more trials for shit we don't need, and won't adopt?

File: 1458665611940.jpg (18KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 499x499px

>>33913329
lolld

>>33913790
The brits have those small flags on the arms in full colour in theatre though

>>33913056
6.5x50 arisaka is the answer. You know it is, deep in your heart.

File: 1465476461004.jpg (162KB, 1100x763px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1100x763px

I literally remember having a discussion with an anon in a similar thread like 2 or 3 year ago as to what the potential new kind of round they would use might be

A lot of ideas were thrown around in this thread, caseless mainly. But this one anon, superbly well spoken and well informed essentially said it would mostly likely be telescoped ammo

Some intermediate calibers being tested include the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, .264 USA as well as other non-commercial intermediate calibers, including cased telescoped ammo, Army officials said.

Here's to you anon, you were right. Proves not everyone here is talking out of their ass.

Ironically; on that note; what are the advantages of telescoping rounds versus normal slugs

File: portfolio-big-7.jpg (2MB, 1908x1531px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1908x1531px

>>33913704
>i love the bright red flag on the side

>>33918303
Everyone should be getting 8'' solomon quests.

>>33918800
double dubs confirms

aha! You all told me .300blk was a meme round, now its time for it to shine.

>>33917212
M855A1 actually has the best ballistic performance of any 5.56 loading, and can pen up to level 4 armor. Having a 20 inch rifle is unnecessary unless you're using 55 grain.

>>33913056
>ArmyTimes.com

It can't be said enough how shitty this publication is. They take the smallest incremental testing, or the quote of some random guy and then blow it up into "THE ARMY IS MAKING A MASSIVE OVERHAUL AND IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT FUCKING NOW!" on every single issue.

>>33918844
300 blackout is only good for SBRs inside of 200 yards. It's a niche round that has no place in a standard infantryman's kit.

>>33913709
Video games. K is mostly autistic kids parroting things they see online wth no real life experience.

We still used 240b, there's an infantry kid out of Carson in my bjj class was telling me they're using limas now that are smaller/lighter.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-10 at 8.46.15 AM.png (594KB, 534x544px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 534x544px

>>33913074
DISCIPLINE

>>33918901
I saw units get retrofitted with the M240Ls for JRTC after they came back from Afghanistan (yeah, that's right, guys from Afghanistan had to almost immediately report to JRTC so they could be trained out of all their live combat experience).

I didn't get to shoot the M240L, but I did get to handle it, and it seems much better suited to dismounted use than the M240B. I still think the M240 is overall an overbuilt MMG when you talk about giving it to dismounted troops. It really feels like a vehicle centric design where they didn't care as much about weight when designing it.

What really makes me shake my head about all the lightweight, ultra high tech R&D is that while individual programs are supposed to help in cutting weight, there is not an overall design philosophy to make the soldier's total kit lighter. Leadership leans heavily on the side of carrying physical protective gear (I think often as an ass covering political move to protect themselves from blame) and ignores the less immediately tangible, but very important benefits of lighter equipped troops. I've seen first hand how increased protective gear has reduced mobility to the point where it was exploited by insurgents.

It strikes me as a kind of farce when all these multibillion dollar programs are trying to shave a few pounds off of a rifle, but then they just bust it by forcing guys to carry 50lb CREW packs in areas where any local commander could tell you they don't fit the context of the threat.

>>33913858
>Being "ambushed" by something 800 meters away is a totally different and relatively more relaxed situation where the DM and the CCTs did the heavy lifting.
You can only say that because the afghans are retards who don't aim

>>33918988
And? The whole basis of the article's bitching about lacking distance is Afghan-centric in it's complaints. A counter point about fighting in Afghanistan is relevant.

In addition, I can't think of any potentionally hostile military which carries with it's standard infantry platoons more longer ranged firepower than US forces. Between the M240s, EBRs, and various long range explosive weapons that is fire superiority. Not to mention that since the US is very dedicated to putting optics on top of service rifles, the combat effective range and volume off effective fire of US assault rifles is going to outpace a military armed with similar rifles which are using iron sights.

>>33918988
This a 2 gun saw team could make life miserable for a typical patrol at 800m and still have a solid chance of escape if they keep mobile and are smart enough to disengage after a bit.

>>33919019
>a 2 gun saw team

The OP article's entire drive is about problems in US forces supposedly being outranged.

Are you now stating that a SAW team outranges a standard platoon? Remember, this is focused on the article;s points of complaint about range issues. Bringing in the idea of a SAW team laying down an 800m "ambush" (more like a shoot'n'scoot) is only relevant if you are arguing that a platoon armed would battle rifles would be significantly better able to react than one armed with 5.56mm riflemen.

File: 264_zpsp1nz5jby.jpg (67KB, 1024x367px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x367px

Everybody in this thread needs to read this article and get learnt.

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/04/jim-schatz-a-path-to-overmatch-next-generation-individual-weapon-system/

>>33919050
If .264 USA is anything like 6.5 Swede then I am all for it. That round is crazy soft shooting.

>>33919050
Same retardation. It's comparing M4s and M249s to enemy SVDs and PKMs.

It lists the weights of the US MMGs (inflating them by including tripod weights) and includes weight of ammo while not providing an equivalent chart (including ammunition) for PKMs.

It completely and totally ignores the existence of DMRs and long range explosive weapons to further it's point. In making it's Afghan environment centered argument it ignores that a platoon is already carrying several fold more long range weapons than it would conceivably encounter in enemy hands.

>>33919050
Here's the full presentation.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2016/armament/18260_Schatz.pdf

>>33919045
In practice and experience most of being outranged and pinned happened around 800m be it by lee enfield, rpk, pkp, mausers, or moisins our primary response was laying down saw fire till we could air or arty. An extra 400m of enemy range doesn't much change our response and having a few additional dm's would be of limited use. Now having more gps shell mortars anywhere near in range for a faster time on target that would have been awesome especially as we may not be fighting inbred goatfuckers who actually understand shoot and scoot

>>33919097
The point he's making is that we can equip every soldier with DMR capabilities without the sacrifices of switching to 308 battle rifles. It makes a lot of sense, it would give us an advantage against the Russians.

File: pepe 909 (1223).jpg (223KB, 1025x1000px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1025x1000px

>>33913329
gj m9

>>33919097
If 6.5 assault rifles and .338 MMGs become standard issue then we won't need to carry all those additional long range weapons or need to waste air support and artillery on a lone PKM that's 800m away. Yeah I know DMRs are a thing but that's really just a stop gap capability.

>>33919120
We already functionally outrange the Russians because we have magnified optics as standard equipment.

He's a salesman making a pitch and fear mongering by comparing a current medium range weapon with an enemy long range weapon and ignoring our own current long range weapons. The (huge) cost of switching service rifle calibers could be better used elsewhere to pump up combat effectiveness.

>muh volume of fire
>muh suppression

>>33918773
>this kills the seal

>>33919165
>We already functionally outrange the Russians because we have magnified optics as standard equipment.
That's true, but you gotta think of the future. He's not just a salesman, it's a brilliant idea.

Again the idea is that we get these new weapons and our current long range weapons are no longer needed. We replace 4(M4, M249, M240, DMR) guns with 2(.264 rifle, .338 MMG). That alone is a huge fucking advantage.

File: wat.png (375KB, 763x960px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 763x960px

>>33914853
Can they even wreck their own shit when the Chinese union falls?

File: 1492491760081.gif (2MB, 360x199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x199px

>>33913329
Good one

>>33916876
You are one retarded nigger.

>>33919190
They could potentially replace 5 guns if you count the M2. I don't know if anyone would really want to give up the M2 though.

>>33913074
Is..

Is that..

Is that literally bong MTP?

>>33919120
Hmm well if it ups the reliable hit/kill ranges without fucking function up close it would only be logistics and training at issue. We would still get outranged by some stuff but I guess it would reduce the gap needed to be closed and limit some options on the other side.

File: PKM-mg.jpg (73KB, 800x175px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x175px

>this triggers the US military brass

>>33913074
Not gonna lie, all those gooks look awful worried about something in front of them, behind the camera.

>>33915485
>>33915454
faggots, sauce or kys

>>33913056
they'll think, they'll talk, they'll test, but in the end they won't bite the bullet, and if they do anything at all to upgrade our arsenal, it'll be M4 PIP 2.

>>33918097
>self-defense army status is a go!

> Current adversaries such as the Islamic State terror group and others using bigger rounds with more reach against U.S. troops, creating an overmatch.
Whoa, whoddathunk GPMGs and DMRs could outrange an assault rifle. Clearly this is proof 5.56 a shit, and evidence we need to have some capability to reach beyond the effective range of the M4. But do such rounds and weapons exist in our inventory? These geniuses really have come across a glaring conundrum...

>>33919928
Made me laugh a bit. Yeah we have options but not always access or authorization to them. In our drawdown phase some O6 didn't want us mounting 240b up in our guard towers let alone bring them out on foot patrols. Thankfully we never took him through the grain silo where we had 3 M2's set up for over watch

>>33913704
at least they can manage to stick their flags on the right way around

>>33913329
Goddamn it I kek'd out loud

They won't do it. 5.56 will be standard until caseless ammo becomes the norm, end of story

>armor
isn't it prohibitive to have any sort of shoulderable(is that a word?) gun that's actually good against armor? as in it's not worth it to give it to everyone?

>>33913552
I think a better solution would be adopting a cartridge with efficiency in mind. Something in 6.5 will have an extremely efficient bullet, which would widen the margin of it's usefulness by quite a bit.

>>33920562
If 270 with solid copper slugs can pen ar 500 I would like to see what it can do with proper ap

>>33920573
Is that the one that fits the ar 15 or the 10 with the appropriate upper either way adding a few hundred meters is certainly worth a look

>>33920152
you mean so it looks like they're retreating?

For the cost of swapping out literally every small arm in a platoon's inventory, I feel like it is much more efficient to issue supplemental equipment.

Add more miniaturized digital thermal optics, and start replacing current optics with a "do it all" solution like a variable 1-6x and I'll bet dollars to donuts that the effective range of a unit gets increased without a single change to the caliber of the weapons being used.

File: RIFLE_IS_FINE.png (111KB, 1518x356px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1518x356px

>>33914077

>>33920562
That's why you make ammo with a hardened steel penetrator.
Seriously why the fuck are we using shut mild steel and lead in our bullets when we want to have penetration?

File: broken arm marksman.jpg (49KB, 674x554px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 674x554px

>>33918097
That's a lot of dakka per rifle platoon!

File: g11k2.jpg (134KB, 1044x383px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1044x383px

>>33915521

Not really. It's a nice addition, but it's nothing revolutionary.

Given that the manufacturer couldn't fulfill a simple 20 weapon order and then HK went apeshit with lawsuits over the ammunition, it's not even the army's fault it got canned.

>>33915781

Yes, they use 5.8x42mm. Basically, they wanted to replicate the performance of 5.56x45mm, but wanted to be able to claim they invented their own, unique caliber like the Russians did with 5.45x39mm.

We've gotten our hands on both the rifles and the ammo. The rifles aren't nearly as accurate as an M4, and the ergonomics are shit; they improved that somewhat with the newest version of the QBZ-95, but the weapon still isn't nearly as functional as an M4.

As for the performance of 5.8mm, it gets slightly better penetration through light barriers than M855, but produces even shittier wounds. People complain that M855 produces icepick wounds with shitty lethality, and 5.8mm makes even shittier wounds with smaller wound channels and less yawing. The cat-eating commies also use gunpowder that doesn't burn as efficiently, so the guns get dirtier faster, leading to loss of accuracy and increased likelihood of jams.

>>33916766

So did the caseless ammo for the HK G11K2. The West German army officially adopted it as their next assault rifle, took delivery of 1,000 rifles, and then the iron curtain fell and between the lack of urgency for new weapons (due to the threat of hordes of godless commie bastards pouring through the Fulda Gap evaporating) and the economic nightmare of turning East Germany into a modern country, they didn't have the budget for kraut space magic and the G11 got canned.

And for some reason, despite being revolutionary technology that was mature enough for a major NATO/EU military to adopt in the friggin' 1980's, we've never dusted them off and looked at them since.

>>33914077
A lot of the Taliban have been upgrading from the 47 to the 74 because the ammo is lighter and it has less recoil.

>>33920702
hmm
wasn't that more expensive? has that changed?

File: YF-23.jpg (283KB, 1800x1138px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1800x1138px

>>33920729
>G11
>Among the great weapons that never were...

File: 264usa.png (60KB, 494x626px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 494x626px

Guys, I think whoever designed the .264 USA just took 5.56 and 7.62 and averaged them together.
5.56+7.62=13.18/2=6.59
45+51=96/2=48
.264 USA has a case length of 47.6mm or so, with a bullet diameter of about 6.7mm.

>>33918860
you got that backwards you monkey.

62 grain loads need 20 inches.

55 can make do with 14/16.

>>33920729
>like the Russians did with 5.45x39mm

The program which resulted in 5.45x39mm started before the US adopted 5.56.

>>33920762
Proofs? In all my time doing WTI, I never came across a single 5.45mm weapon.

The majority were 7.62x39 or 7.62x54r with a random smattering of other calibers. I saw 5.56mm in the form of stolen/bought ANA M16A2s.

>>33917179

>WW1-era Steyr M95 has range settings that go out to a fucking mile-and-a-half
>My Mauser broomhandle from the same era has sight settings for 1,000 meters
>Most combat engagements in WW1 took place at less than 100 yards; Sgt York made his legendary shots between 25 and 50 yards
>Late war development was all about submachine guns, pistols, shotguns, and devices to convert long-range bolt-action rifles into short-range semi-auto rifles for close-quarters combat

>Pre-WW2, military goes back to wanting riflemen capable of 1,000 yard shots and focuses rifle development on achieving that
>Most WW2 combat takes place at less than 100 yards, late war weapon development is all about SMG's, assault rifles, carbines, and close-quarters combat

>Pre-Vietnam, military becomes obsessed with idea of 1,000 yard marksmen and issues M14's and the like
>Vietnam, majority of combat engagements are less than 100 yards, late war developments are all about assault rifles geared toward close-quarters combat

>Post-Vietnam, army wants 1,000 yards marksmen again
>Panama, Grenada, Gulf War are all less than 100 yards engagements

>Pre-forever war in Middle East, army wants 1,000 yard marksmen again
>Overwhelming majority of engagements are less than 100 yards
>Bare handful of instances in Afghanistan where shitty marksmen take potshots at long range; average rifleman with M4 can't engage, but DMR's, SAW's, and GPMG's can engage just fine
>WE NEED 1,000 YARD MARKSMEN, HOLY SHIT

We need to find where this idea keeps coming from and kill it.

>>33918301

>Costs spiraling out of control, turning a jet that was supposed to be less capable than the F-22 but cheaper into a jet less capable than the F-22 but several times more expensive
>F-35B and C don't even mount the gun internally, it has to be podded
>Air force generals claim it can replace the F-15, F-16, and A-10; people in charge of actually evaluating it say it's worse than all of them
>"working out quite well"

>>33918612
We just had that thread 2-3 weeks ago.

>>33920829
Heh some ofth ALP were rocking 8mm and 303

>>33913381
How is the barrel life on 6.5 CM?
I was under the impression that was one of the biggest hurdles to overcome in adopting a 6.5mm cartridge is finding a balance between long range ballistics/armor penetrating capability and barrel longevity.

>>33913242
This. I still remember how the XM8 will definitely replace the M4.

>>33920865
Or the scar

>>33920839
>more expensive than the F-22

Wrong.

>>F-35B and C don't even mount the gun internally, it has to be podded

Unwanted and irrelevant.

>people in charge of actually evaluating it say it's worse than all of them

Current LRIP versions, which is a "no shit" statement.

Stop reading vanity fair and spray for your info, sir.

>>33920839
>F35 less capable than F-22
Now you're just being retarded on purpose

>>33919156
Who's calling for a .338 MMG? The current push seems to be to go to a single-round solution with the "long" 6.5mm CTSAS, that is effective out past 1200m.

>>33919050
see>>33920907

>>33920839
I can tell you exactly what it is.

Without direct combat and immediate pressure to win combat- factors which produce effective equipment procurement and TTPs, the military leadership starts getting ideas more and more divorced from reality, and with no combat ongoing to counter act them, the retardation increases exponentially. Training for combat then becomes combat as viewed through the lens and bias of somebody who either has no combat experience, or only experienced it in a command role, but not in the field.

You get things like the obsession with marksmanship because it taps into the romanticized view of combat and tradition, and because accuracy on a static range is something that can be objectively measured.

I have seen many occasions of institutional forces ignoring the realities of actual combat and instead replacing it with their warped hypothetical version. When those minds are running the training, you get unrealistic training. Get several generations of that with guys raised on bad training becoming the trainers and you end up with TTP inbreeding.

>>33916159
ayyy i was in marjah

we found so many enfields and mausers

some asshat had a martini henry as well

>>33920825

>5.45mm
>Adopted in 1974
>Began development in early 1970's

>5.56mm
>Adopted in 1963
>Began development in 1957

No.

>>33920790

>YF-23
>Faster than the YF-22, better range, stealthier, lower maintenance, cheaper, better than the YF-22 in every way possible except the YF-22 was SLIGHTLY more maneuverable for close-range dogfighting
>YF-23 superior in almost every way, and it would have been even better in the production version since it had oversized engine nacelles for a requirement that got dropped; production version would have had smaller nacelles, making it even stealthier, reducing weight, and increasing performance
>Nope, let's adopt the F-22, have every single component manufactured in a different Congressional district to spread the pork around and jack up the cost, then only purchase 187 instead of the 1,000+ we were supposed to, even though we took the planes away from a dozen fighter squadrons in anticipation of their old F-16's being replaced with F-22's

>Army camouflage trials
>Multicam is rarely the best in any one test environment, but consistently performs in the top two or three in every single environment, whereas every other camo tested performed really well in one specific environment and sucked in all the rest
>UCP consistently had the worst performance in every single test environment
>Change the colors of UCP slightly in hopes of improving performance, but never actually test it with the new colors
>Adopt UCP instead of literally anything else
>Soldiers spend 15 years bitching that their camo doesn't work worth shit
>The occasional apologist says it works just fine if you "season it", ie roll around in the dirt and cover up the actual camo
>Finally, after 15 years, army decides to gradually ditch UCP for a knockoff of Multicam

It's like we consistently pick the dumbest option every time.

>>33920729
LSAT (the precursor to CTSAS) actually based its caseless formula off of the G11 ammo, with some updates--they mentioned in an interview how hard it was to find people who knew how to make the stuff who hadn't already retired.

>>33920839
>We need to find where this idea keeps coming from and kill it.
We know perfectly well where it comes from: bureaucracy. But that cannot be killed.

>>33920839
>We need to find where this idea keeps coming from and kill it.
is it not just the fact marksmen are considered intimidating and cool hyper-competent?

>>33920930
Yf-23 had frontally exposed fan blades at certain angles (+15 degrees pointing down from the front, I.e perfect Sam viewing). It was its Achilles heel.

>>33920950
>>33920956
>>33920919
>>33920839
It's different this time. Due to advances in ammunition technology we can get that super long range precision rifle in an assault rifle package. It will be just as effective as an M4 in CQB but it will have extended range and improved lethality, with none of the weight and recoil concerns of a .308.

>>33920976
And what a waste of potential that is, instead of rather using the new advances to go further down the road of SCHV in order to increase the number of rounds carried as this is the only thing that correlates with victories in infantry battles.

>>33920976
Also we now have optics that can actually make shooting at 1000m+ realistic. Like the Steiner ICS or the Tracking Point rifles.

>>33921013
That's just like, your opinion, man.

>>33920976
that's nice but it would still require replacing a lot of kit and ammo for (arguably) little benefit

File: feels sad.jpg (7KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x194px

>>33920960
So congress figured that the thought of a fighter showing too much pantsu for SAM was too lewd to fix, so they chose a worse option? Sounds about right!

>>33921039
Well, if it's showing blades it's the worse option.

>>33921029
>it would still require replacing a lot of kit and ammo
SO FUCKING WHAT

We're gonna have to upgrade eventually. You niggers act like caliber and rifle change is some kind of insurmountable obstacle. It can be a pain in the ass but it's not the end of the world.

>>33921014
Try making out an enemy at 1000 meters. that's 10 football fields long. And the guy isn't wearing a bright jersey in front of a monochrome astroturf background standing upright. He's showing just enough to be able to shoot, i.e. head and shoulders, and is camouflaged within a diverse landscape.

File: 1427990165252.jpg (216KB, 1564x616px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1564x616px

>>33918860
>Heavy 130 - 400 gr rounds need the extra barrel length to burn the extra 6 - 20 grains of powder they need for shit like 6.5 creed and .50 BMG

>Magically 5.56 don't and Eugene stoner didn't develop the .223 and its 20" barrel to work in tandem

You are a fockin moron

>>33921053
>What is modern optics

>>33921024
No, that's just like operations research findings from actual wars.

>>33921063
We won't be decreasing the amount of ammo we carry though.

>>33921044
Was there no way of fixing that?

>>33921075
Maybe, maybe not, but fucking with the intake design on a mach 2+ fighter is a big nono

>>33921062
Optics don't help you to find the enemy. It helps to aim at AFTER you decided where to look at. Good luck trying to scan a wide landscape through a scope while under fire.

>>33921058
Modern bullet design has severely diminished the importance of velocity in terminal ballistics.

>>33921082
No fucking shit, anon.

>>33920930
>No.
Yes.

5.45mm came out of the 5.6mm round.

Program started in the late 50s.

>>33921066
My point was, we could be increasing it. Choosing a larger caliber instead is dumb. Combat evaluation showed no correlation between the caliber used and the number of enemy casualties.
The entire caliber discussion is completely divorced from reality. It's discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

>>33921045
>We're gonna have to upgrade eventually.
I mean when man-portable railguns or lasers become cheaply available, sure
but why do we HAVE TO HAVE slightly better bullet-chuckers?

>>33921123
>why do we HAVE TO HAVE slightly better bullet-chuckers?
Why shouldn't we? I'm okay with any new technology if it gives us an advantage over our enemies.

File: 545x39-18.jpg (153KB, 894x596px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 894x596px

>>33921103
Forgot pic

>>33921084
But it hasn't. Especially when you go with a material with less density than lead which sheds energy and drops 6 fuckin MOA at 200'-300'

ESPECIALLY when dealing with a round that is 60 years old and its at the absolute bleeding edge of a combat round at .223 OD

Even late editions of Hornady or lee quote that 20" is optimal and they would know

>>33921121
This isn't just a larger caliber, it's a more accurate caliber that will be paired with next gen optics that increase the range and effectiveness of the average soldier.

flechettes when?
>flat as fuck ~5000fps
>sickening penetration
>fucking space age

>>33921084
Cheap steel plate armor would like a word. Even afghan durka could get the ork armor when they were up to carrying it. Now for hollow point yes you are quite right but mil is still not up on those for the most part

>>33921145
Optimal but not necessary.

>>33921154
never

>>33921149
The accuracy increase of the bullet is irrelevant just as the accuracy of the weapon. Both are at the very least an order of magnitude more accurate than a shooter in combat. In combat total error is completely dominated by shooter error. Other things pale in comparison.
And no, you can't make every soldier a sniper or designated marksman.

File: 1454253912794.jpg (45KB, 728x728px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 728x728px

>>33921162
Kinda is when Targets are Wadis and Mountain sides away on average. Doping on none adjustable ACOGs can only get you so far.

Don't intentionally try to break your gun

File: Staring at computer reaction.png (6KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 400x400px

>Wind back time ~65 years
>NATO standardization, UK proposes .280 British, which is good for individual weapons and machineguns
>Everyone else on board
>Army Ordnance insists on "muh .30 cal rifle"
>Strong-arms NATO into adopted 7.62x51
>Present day
>"Hey guys, we should adopt an intermediate cartridge in the 6.5-7mm range, it could replace 5.56 and 7.62 :^)

God fucking dammit here we go again

>>33921137
because that stuff isn't any more free than "free college" or a free lunch, and why should I pay if it's not worth it?

>>33921201
And 65 years later we have retards saying 6.5 is too powerful. I don't fucking get it. We should've just adopted it back then.

>>33921216
It is worth it though. see>>33919190

>>33921228
I mean, if we can replace two guns with one, that would be great, but what are the chances of the military changing things up that much instead of replacing both or keeping one of the old ones?

>>33920930
Maneuverability is also important for BVR combat, and the YF-22 had a significant edge.

File: 1387401295401.jpg (60KB, 694x530px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 694x530px

>>33921216
>old rifles inevitably get worn out over time so you need replacement either way
>don't use the opportunity to acquire provably better rifles
>instead buy the same old shit for half a century
>justify it by saying the capability increase of newer rifles isn't worth the price of new rifles
>buy actual new rifles of the old design instead
>mfw

>>33920895

>R&D cost of F-22: $66.7 billion
>R&D cost of F-35: $1 trillion+ estimated

The individual aircraft are, currently, slightly cheaper, but we only just achieved that lower cost, R&D is still ongoing, and they keep having to revamp the design; they delivered 30+ F-35C's to the navy and THEN discovered that the wingtips all needed replaced because they couldn't mount the missile they were supposed to mount, something that should have been figured out before the first one rolled off the assembly line.

>Gun is unwanted and irrelevant

Sure, tell that to the F-4. And the fact that they DO want the gun, they just can't mount it internally due to design limitations.

>"Well sure, it sucks NOW, but on paper it's awesome!"

It's a piece of shit.

>F-35 fails on 275 different points and is inadequate for all of its intended combat roles
https://archive.is/WH2dU

>>33920897

Gee, the cheaper, less stealthy aircraft meant to be the mass-production plane while the F-22 is the elite plane, is less capable, and you seem to think that's blasphemy. Because you're a fucking idiot.

The fact that they're trying to cram all these different, conflicting, roles onto one aircraft (and failing miserably) doesn't make it good, much less better.

>>33920919

Meanwhile, we've spent the last 16 years in constant war, so you'd think people would figure out what works and what doesn't from simple experience and/or observation.

>>33921254
Wut.

>>33921251
That is the important question.

>>33921259
You have no idea how this works, do you?

>>33921264
>muh 1 trillion is R&D costs

Wrong

>air combat half a century ago is relevant to today

Wrong

>i will ignore the fact that all teen series fighters did not achieve FOC during LRIP.

You are welcome to do that.

>link showing LRIP aircraft not at FOC

Thanks for making my point.

Low effort bait gets low effort responses.

Who even cares about small arms anymore? In 50 years, wars will not even be fought by living, breathing men except in shithole countries

>>33921280
go ahead, enlighten us

File: b9bc967f85a6e26b5c0d3e981338d359.jpg (1MB, 1936x2592px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1936x2592px

>>33921305
It will be fought by men in power armor.

>>33921264
F4 proves that a gun has a marginal benefit, you tardlet. It was also in Vietnam, before missiles were even semi reliable.

The rest of your post.. I don't even know where to start. You're deluded if you think you know a single fucking thing.

>>33921267
What part escapes you?

>>33917925
Supreme post.

>>33921336
>What part escapes you?

Logically does not make sense, hence why the USAF is re-interested in the arsenal plane concept.

File: P562AoB.jpg (173KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1024x905px

GET YOUR BINGO BOARDS HERE

>>33917925
6.5 recoils exactly like 5.56

File: 1480317325089.jpg (251KB, 1373x685px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1373x685px

>>33913056
>it's a "US army thinks theyre going to adopt new technology but in reality like 2 units rotating to kuwait will get it, and then another 2 units, etc and then maybe 10 years later the rest of the army will slowly start to get the new tech by the time it's already obsolete tech" --Episode

>>33921381
It's a shame the M4 will have such a short service life.

File: confusion.jpg (46KB, 434x516px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 434x516px

>>33921217
The heavier .280 British cartridges were fantastic. But US Ordnance was dead-set on the old "aimed full-power rifle fire" concept. Meanwhile the British figured out that you wanted a high volume of fire.
Just imagine working at Enfield in the late 50's and early 60's, after having 7.62x51 forced onto you, only to hear that US Ordnance have made an *amazing* discovery that volume of fire determines engagements.

>>33919239
You need the M2 to counter lightly armored vehicles.

>>33920708
Not really.
The US has a M249 for every fourth guy, and we have 3 fireteams of 4 guys as a squad, and 3 squads per platoon.

>>33921330
or just drones and androids because it's not as retarded expensive

>>33921354
Logically, manoeuvring is a part of standard practice in BVR combat. Read a book.

>hence why the USAF is re-interested in the arsenal plane concept.

Yeah okay, call me when that happens.

>>33921137
I hate POG Fobbit gear queers.

I carried an m4 all during my deployment. The AR platform is still the most practical military Rifle in service worldwide. 556 is fine, spending billions for something slightly better is a waste of money.

>>33921139

>Nuh-uh, 5.45mm was invented first! Even though it was invented specifically in response to 5.56mm and was adopted a whole decade later!
>See, for proof I have a picture that shows cartridges made a decade after I claim it was first invented!

Meanwhile...

>5.56mm
>Development began 1957
>Adopted 1963
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

>5.45mm
>Development began in early 1970's
>Adopted in 1974
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.45%C3%9739mm

>Soviets began developing 5.45mm as a result of learning of NATO's 5.56mm development program, meaning 5.56mm started first; two years before the Soviets became aware of it, in fact
>5.45mm didn't get its current case dimensions until 1967, 4 years after 5.56mm first entered service
>Production began in 1968, but the ammo produced was for testing and not the final version adopted in 1974
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/01/10/5-45x39-small-but-perfect-a-history-of-development/

So 5.56mm started development first AND entered service several years before 5.45mm was even invented (we're not counting other experimental cartridges that are otherwise unrelated, such as 5.6x39mm, as 5.45mm. Otherwise we might as well count .222 Remington as being the same as 5.56mm, in which case we could claim it was invented in 1950 and beat 5.45mm by an even greater margin.).

>>33921154

>Shitty accuracy
>Small wound channels unless they yaw or fragment
>They sucked balls out of a shotgun, but were pretty damn nasty out of a howitzer or recoilless rifle

>>33921254

Marginal edge.

And I'm ok with the F-22, I just think the production version of the F-23 would have been better.

The F-35 needs to be shit-canned and a new fighter designed though. We're trying to do too much at once with it, and it's turning it into a massive money pit. Cancel the F-35, make one plane for the air force that fits the bill and a different plane for the navy/marines that fits their need, and never the twain shall meet.

Fucking slavaboo kids better not run their fucking mouths or I will fucking slap a fucking bitch.

>>33921388
consider the m16s from nam and the m4s from today in the same lifestpan of service rifle

theres 50 years of training, parts stockpiling, ammo stockpiling, and the military literally molding itself around this rifle and 5.56 that needs to suddenly be replaced

if they just buy a new m4 in a larger chambering then it's not changing a whole lot, and unless they are declaring 5.56 to no longer be a NATO qualified round then it's definitely not a problem. replacing 5.56 for all of NATO would be huge

>>33921407
Still the Finns enjoy the range benefit of the 7.62×54mmR vs M249 5.56

>>33921444
The new rifle will still be an AR it's just gonna chambered for a slightly larger round that is vastly superior.

>>33921434
Yes, you do have to maneuver in BVR, but it's not a top design priority (ie "important")

>>33921447
>Shit I never said.

At least try.

>>33921466
Yes, it is. If you cannot bleed energy from an opponent's weapon and they have parity in range, they will kill you.

>>33921447
You're PAINFULLY stupid.

File: MX.png (181KB, 1000x500px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1000x500px

Pics of the new 6.5x39 gun in development, currently called the MX

>>33921509
Where are the proofs?

>>33921509
>x39
I don't think so, buddy.

>>33921453
They should just use 300 memeout

>>33921520
>doesn't know about CSAT

mildjej

File: Creedmoor vs Arisaka.png (70KB, 642x385px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 642x385px

>>33918606
>>33916967
>>33916876

kek we are actually considering switching to a slightly faster round from WWII that even the creators tried to ditch.

>>33921505
You bleed with distance which is attained by speed famalam. High G maneuvers trade speed for movement which is not needed for BVR maneuvers. Nice, curving, low G turns that don't trade speed is vital at BVR

File: futurecombat.jpg (121KB, 640x408px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 640x408px

>>33921298

>1 trillion cost
>I won't show any evidence to back up my assertion, because I'm an F-35 fanboy
>My favorite flavor lollipop is dick

>muh air combat is irrelevant

So is that why the air force insists on giving it a gun, and why the gun is even a major part of its role? How does the F-35 engage soft ground targets like infantry, soft-skinned vehicles, etc. or strafe a column if missiles are the end-all, be-all of combat? How does the F-35 engage enemy aircraft in a dogfight too close for missiles or with too brief an engagement window?

>Keeps claiming it sucks because it's a prototype
>Ignores that this is the production version currently being delivered to the military and declared combat operational

The only low effort shit here is you, dumbass.

>>33921305

>Why even bother having current, not-obsolete weapons when they'll all be obsolete in the distant future thanks to super-advanced technology?

The 1950's called, they want their super space soldiers with jetpacks and gyrojet rifles back.

>>33921544
We've come full circle. I'm okay with a 6.5 round though.

>>33921557
>>I won't show any evidence to back up my assertion, because I'm an F-35 fanboy

I didn't bother reading past this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#cite_note-9

>>33921420

Drones and tech had never won a war. Iraq was never won, we have been in Afghanistan for 16years. Vietnam, lost.

I say this all A's a veteran of the Iraq war.

Sorry reddit, men and courage win wars, not tech.

>>33921557
>super space soldiers with jetpacks and gyrojet rifles

I was thinking drones, and whatever Boston Dynamics comes out with in a few decades coupled with artificial intelligence

File: a fucking leaf.jpg (762KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

762KB, 2560x1600px

>>33921154
*blocks ur path*

>>33921505

>Makes claims, but can't back them up
>Other guy posts links to actual proof that what he says is correct
>"Nuh-uh, y-y-you're stupid! You're so s-stupid I'm not even going to t-try arguing with you!"
>Sits in the corner fuming at having been proven wrong

Do your parents know you're on their computer?

>>33921557
>I made a claim but its your job to prove me wrong, not for me to prove myself right

lol

>fucking gun runs

KEK

literally teleported from 1970. CAS and interdiction does not utilize gun runs anymore you stupid fuck. Outside of shows of force in COIN, its entirely PGMs.

>>33921578
None of those wars were conventional conflicts. Their outcome had nothing to do with the US being beaten back either. You of all people should know that, mister internet badass.

File: futurecombat2.jpg (61KB, 468x483px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 468x483px

>>33921585

>Completely missing the point about how people kept saying there was no point in adopting 'marginally' better equipment now when super weapons were just a few decades off

We didn't get atomic wars with radiation suit-clad soldiers, jetpacks, flying jeeps, or laser rifles, what makes you think we're getting AI combat robots? And how are we supposed to fight a real war (not glorified occupation against illiterate goat-fuckers) in the meantime?

>>33921298
>>air combat half a century ago is relevant to today
>Wrong
they said the same from 1950s right up until gooks started giving hard time for American jets without cannons with their cannon -armed MiGs & suddenly there's a newfound interest in adding a cannon to Phantom & coincidentaly the Navy establishes Topgun & dogfighting was brought back as an integral part of fighter pilot training.

>inb4 "yeah but we have learned from that mistake"
precisely: the lesson we have learned is "don't get rid of it just because right now you think you don't need it"

>>33913056
Good luck with that.

>>33917224
>MFW the army dumped all that M16 on the Marines
>MFW they're gunna have to ask for them back to save money
>mfw they won't and they'll just burn money and we'll get the scraps like always

>>33921629
>We didn't get atomic wars with radiation suit-clad soldiers, jetpacks, flying jeeps, or laser rifles, what makes you think we're getting AI combat robots?

Because they're more feasible and because factory workers are already being replaced by machines, why wouldn't that carry over to the military?

>>33921264
>Muh 6 trillion
That's the cost if the entire plane over it's projected 50 year life cycle you tard.
>You'd think people would figure out what works
They have. That's why the F-35 is a thing. Data link and high precision/ low yield bombs that can be carried in large numbers are the future of CASS. Not BRRRRRT.

>>33921688
The Marines don't even want the M16.

>>33913329
officially the kek of the week

>>33921598

>Makes claims without evidence to back them up
>"I don't have to prove I'm right!"
>Accuses the other guy of doing what he's doing

>Posts actual links backing up his claims
>Other guy doesn't link to jack shit
>"lolololol doesn't count"

Fuck off. What are you, twelve?

>nobody uses guns anymore!

Other than the whole "the F-35 and its 25mm gun can totally replace the A-10 and its 30mm gun" thing the air force has been pushing for years you mean?

>Hurr, we decided in the late 50's that all a fighter needs is missiles, guns are obsolete!
>Oh shit, dogfights occur at ranges too close for missiles and with engagement windows too short to get a missile lock, better put guns back on our fighters!
>Actual combat experience is somehow irrelevant to current decisions

>British Harriers got gun kills in Falklands War because missiles couldn't get a reliable lock
>US F-15's got in close-range dogfights with Iraqi MiG's in the Gulf War; one notably was too close to engage with missiles, but fortunately the Iraqi pilot was a retard and plowed into the ground instead of engaging with his gun
>Russia and China are developing stealth fighters and anti-missile countermeasures that make missile engagements dicey at best
>Nope, don't need the option of firing a bunch of bullets at it

>CAS doesn't utilize gun runs anymore
>That's why the A-10 uses its 30mm on a regular basis, because nobody needs- wait, shit
>That's why the air force and Lockheed keep advertising the 25mm gun on the F-35 as being adequate for the CAS role

You know the only thing worse than a moron?

An ARROGANT moron.

>>33921726
there are a lot of things Marines don't want but get anyways, such as STDs and Article 15s...

>>33921757
All I can do is laugh and walk away. At least you're in a position of no power and will never be relevant, so we're all safe.

File: IMG_1666.gif (61KB, 400x1020px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x1020px

>>33920839
>Air force generals claim it can replace the F-15, F-16, and A-10; people in charge of actually evaluating it say it's worse than all of them

A hilarious lie.

>>33921757
You filled almost my entire bingo card in one go. Good job

>>33921700

They've proven that automation is less efficient and more expensive than human labor when it comes to auto manufacturing, so the argument that factory workers are being replaced by machines doesn't hold true.

It especially doesn't hold true because it's an apples and oranges comparison; a factory machine takes identical components and assembles them in identical ways, with no variation. A combat AI, meanwhile, has to deal with completely different variables, millions of them simultaneously, every single time it deploys, and make the correct decision. We're still impressed when a robot manages to navigate its way around the lab without fucking it up. We're a long way off from having a robot that can make tactical decisions all on its own and kill the right people, not nearby civilians. Shit, we keep blowing up completely innocent people with our drones NOW, and that's with a human calling the shots.

And again, you're still missing the point: even if we do develop this super-duper stuff that totally won't become just another fantasy like all the others before it, what do we fight with in the meantime? If it takes 50 years to get these super weapons into service, are we going to stick with current weapons for the next 50 years while everyone else continues to improve what they've got? Imagine if we'd just decided that what we had in Vietnam was "good enough" until we got nuclear-powered bombers and laser rifles. We'd be fucked.

>>33921201
>I have poor knowledge of the history of .280

>>33921847
Drones killing innocent people is due to dropping a JDAM on a house that intelligence says is hiding some high level goon, but turns out not to be true. The action of dropping said munition would be just as well performed by a human or computer.

That said, we have missiles currently in use that identify targets in real time and prioritise them. F-35's EOTS also does this.

>>33921782

>I still haven't provided a single shred of evidence to back up any of my claims and keep getting my ass handed to me by a guy who does provide evidence
>Better toss another ad hominem his direction and back out while pretending I won
>I hope mom gets me another box of Gushers for after school

>>33921557
>doesn't even know what the trillion number is
>thinks others are required to put effort into responding to someone with so little knowledge of the subject

>>33921782
>>33921876
Jesus will both of you fuck already?
The sexual tension is killing me.

>>33921645
Missile only F-4's outperformed gun armed F-4's.

Vietnamese MiG-21's got most of their kills with missiles.

>>33921847
also imagine the shitstorm when US Army deploys the first combat robot, it kills a civilian & an argument is made that because it was a machine that killed the civilian, there's no-one to blame for the tragic error; every warlord and dictator the world over wants an army of combat robots to take down their enemies as it's apparently OK to kill civilians when it's done by an autonomous machine.

>>33918373
Just ask your nearest Ranger Reg. designated marksman with the M14 EBR, they know this pain.

>>33921909
>Vietnamese MiG-21's got most of their kills with missiles.
what makes you think that when I said "MiGs" I was talking about Fishbeds?

>>33913406
Well if you have gun teams attached like any normal infantry platoon, that is not an issue. You would know this if you ever spent time in the Army.

>>33915501
>>33915521
HK was brought in to work on the weapon then decided to jew the .mil and refused to produce or release critical parts.
They figured it would give US troops an unfair advantage against the communists who still run Germany when we are inevitably drawn into conflict with them when this marxist rhetoric poisoning the west finally comes crashing down.

>>33921847
>We'd be fucked.

Have you looked at any non-western country? they all use 60 year old weapons and technology, or at least some of them did until recently

>>33913406
Idiot. We have mk48s also.

>>33921847
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

imagine if this thing was to robots what 1960s computer was to a current PC. Imagine it.

>>33921947
Because the alternative is saying fighters that only had guns got their kills with guns, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not being intellectually dishonest.

File: rehost-2016-9-13-4c439025-7a34-4177-b268-914f15e08eab.jpg (75KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1280x720px

>>33921370

>>33921544
>20% more energy
>massively better ballistics
>"slightly faster"

File: ford-brazil.png (193KB, 404x249px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 404x249px

>>33921847
>They've proven that automation is less efficient and more expensive than human labor when it comes to auto manufacturing

Source on that? Brazil is not high pay, and Ford's new plant is automated as hell compared to most US plants.

>>33922099
>I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were not being intellectually dishonest
>on /k/
Well what dummy told you that was a good idea?

>>33921370
6.5CM is nice compared to .308, but nowhere near as soft as 5.56, especially offhand. All full power rounds, even .243, have roughly 150% more powder.

6.5x39 or whatever the metric designation is has better recoil, but it's slow as fuck out of anything but a 25" barrel, anf if you thought M855 ice picked...

>>33922099
yes, and? We are not here to talk about kill counts nor with which weapons they were achieved, we are talking about how the Vietnamese fighter pilots flying planes built for dog fighting got the Americans to reintroduce cannon armament to planes that supposedly didn't need cannons & more importantly got US Navy establish Topgun after dog fighting had already been eliminated from pilot training, if cannon armament and dog fighting practice were obsolete, why were they brought back?

File: Saab_Carl-Gustav.pdf-page-4-of-8-500x326.jpg (44KB, 500x326px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x326px

>>33916583
>Or you could throw smart HE (with smart fuses) at them in those edge cases.
Here is the best squad setup.

1 guy with carl gustav (loaded) some small pdw, like an mp7
1 loader with the same pdw and 6-8 rounds of HE or what ever you want for the mission.
4 guys with m4 and 2 rounds for the gustav each
1 DMR
1 LMG

When shtf every one just mag dumps at the enemy to suppress them and then you hit them with 16 rounds of HE that explodes right over their head. If you want to go high tech you just put a range finder that connects to the loaded grenade so that you can pick a distance for airburst, that way the loaded doesn't have to screw around with it, literally.

Go ahead and tell my why this wouldn't be the best shit ever.

>>33921917
> there's no-one to blame for the tragic error

That's not how that will work with any country that is in the G20 and you damn well know it.

>>33921917
>imagine the shitstorm when US Army deploys the first combat robot, it kills a civilian & an argument is made that because it was a machine that killed the civilian, there's no-one to blame for the tragic error
Bullshit. There's always a human to put blame on, fairly or unfairly. That's the biggest reason pilots are officers. Hell, that's the biggest difference between officers and enlisted. If killbots become a thing, some poor sap has to be accountable for setting the ROEs and AORs for the killbots. That poor sap will be an officer, or perhaps an NCO doing most of the work while the officer is in charge. And this officer will get his career shit on or worse if his killbots screw up.

>>33922099
>being intellectually dishonest.
uhh, what? Not specifying a detail (that I was talking about MiG-19s) that is already implied in the topic ("dogfighting, cannon-armed MiGs" in 1960s definitely sounds like every MiG in existence *except* Fishbed) is "dishonesty"?

>>33922299
You will obviously have sex bots before you have kill bots and then you will have SJW feminist pushing for the humanization of ''non biological individuals'' and grant them citizenship, the right to vote etc and giving them the right to press rape charges against their former owners.

And if sex bots are persons that are accountable and have rights then kill bots are to.

>>33922299
what I meant was that no-one would be dragged to Hague to face charges for war crimes, the practice of finding a scapegoat or a dozen when ever something goes wrong is so nearly automatic that DOD probably has a standardized form for it...

>>33913699
>rimmed magnum cartridge
>2000+17

File: IMG_1121.jpg (61KB, 618x412px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 618x412px

>>33916444
US Army adopts new universial round for all small arms. LMG weight halved, Service Rifle can engage out to 1200 yards, Sniper and DMRs are basically the same as service rifle but with longer barrel and better scope.
>LMGs don't have enough mass and parts break sooner while higher recoil decreases accuracy
> Riflemen can't carry as much ammo and bigger round limits magizine capacity. Higher recoil and lower ammo counts per magizine reduces rapid fire ability. Most targets are still engaged at less than 300 meters.
>DMRs don't have any major advantage over service rifle at long ranges but are much worse in close quarters.
>Snipers see above
>Pistols universal round is far too big for any side arm.
Congratulations you just caused a bunch of problems already solved by having multiple types of rounds that are specialized for their purpose.
A new round for the roles of the m16/m4/m249 is fine and dandy but dont try to make it the round for all weapon types.
Make the 5.56 m27 iar standard issue rifle.
5.56 m249 at squad level
7.62 crew served lmgs at platoon level.
7.62 dmr at squad level.
7.62 ammo mules as needed

>>33921082
That's where sensor fusion technology could come into play--for example, a HUD that combines data from NVGs, a passive sonar shot-spotter, etc.

File: us-night-vision-1.jpg (11KB, 450x359px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 450x359px

>>33923461
this

>>33921264
USN never put a gun on the F-4; they just taught their pilots how to dogfight and gave them the freedom to do so instead of following rote GCI commands.

Guess which service had the better kill ratio in the second half of the war?

>>33921201
>.280 bong.
>Too heavy for auto fire, Too light for MG.
>Soviets adopt 5.45.
>NATO shits itself.
>Adopt 4.85x49mm.

>>33921557
It's like you never heard of SDB-2.

>>33921459
That's WITH the 240's and M203's.

>>33922266
Pike might have it beat for range and weight, but yeah, that's certainly one of the options.

>>33921757
Dude I feel you.
>posts facts, historical data, logical scenarios.
>"memememememememememememe!"
Debate on /k/ is like debating retarded children, they'll just ignore you or start screeching.