So who likes Military stuff? *unofficial Military topic thread*

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,650
203
106
The retirement of the F14 sadens me... hopefully the F18/F22 wil carry on in its legacy.
 

dannybek

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2002
1,096
0
0
Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx
I cant really complain about the jamming of a M16. I just got back from Fallujah , with all the sandstorms we had, never ever had a problem.

The only real complaint i have with the M16 is the stopping power, 5.56 ball rounds just dont have enough to put some guys to the ground (seriously i've seen it).

Although one can argue an AK is a reliable weapon, past 300 meters its worthless, thats the disadvantage. Obvious advantage is you can bury the f***er and pick it up and shoot it.


Just my 2 cents

What's your unit?
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx
I cant really complain about the jamming of a M16. I just got back from Fallujah , with all the sandstorms we had, never ever had a problem.

The only real complaint i have with the M16 is the stopping power, 5.56 ball rounds just dont have enough to put some guys to the ground (seriously i've seen it).

Although one can argue an AK is a reliable weapon, past 300 meters its worthless, thats the disadvantage. Obvious advantage is you can bury the f***er and pick it up and shoot it.


Just my 2 cents

I had the chance to fire the AK on full auto in Baghdad, and that pig is absolutely impossible to control -- another advantage of the M16 and its smaller round. I could get 2-3 rounds somewhere close to the target but just barely (3 was pushing it). Recoil was just too strong on automatic. I also really hated the fire selector on the AK.

They are painfully easy to use and reasonably accurate on single shot, and their reliability is well known. They do have their problems, however.

The MP5 -- now, THAT'S a fun weapon to shoot on full auto!
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: Xyo II
Originally posted by: destrekor
i love military tech and weaponry.

to comment on the XM8... um it's sad to say it's been cancelled, as was the entire OCIW program, much like the RAH-66 Commanche program (also cancelled).

funding is horrible for the military right no
w. at least they are getting those video visors out (buddy in the Army said he actually got to see some of the prototypes, and was told they will be out in full force in 6 years, with them starting to be rolled out close to the end of his current 4 year term), and by the way, those visors were one of the new fancy things in Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (and all the other things are currently prototypes with plans for full-scale deployment to all troops.)
damn I'm looking forward to all of the new things because they should be fully deployed during my time in the Army. :)

ahahahaha "funding is horrible for the military right now" - What you really mean is "the military has spent all of it's money on expensive sh!t right now". I'm not anti-military or any of that jazz, but you just can't deny that our defense budget is skyhigh.

Historically speaking as a percentage of GNP? Military funding is low. If we funded the military along the same percentage we did in the '80s, we'd be spending over $500 billion per year. We're only around $400 billion because of the supplemental funding for war expenditures. Once we start recapitalizing, we'll need to spend all of that money on aircraft, tanks, etc. USAF airframes average over 20 years each (average!).
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Anyway, anyone heard of the new Grumman RQ-8B FireScout? Its an unmanned heli thats gunna be sold to the Army, Navy, and Marines. Its basically a far seeing reconnaissance unit that locates potential threats and sends news via pics and radar back to either an avation ship, ala Aircraft Carrier, cruiser or destroyer, or in the case of the Army, a pre-determined setup position in all environments.
 

flyboy84

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2004
1,731
0
76
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: flyboy84
I work on these:

MH-60R
MH-60S

Those Seahawks?

The next generation of Seahawks, yes. The 60R does antisubmarine warfare/surface warfare, intel gathering, etc and has a super powerful radar for finding surface contacts (think E2 for the surface). The 60S does general transport, vertical replenishment, and search and rescue. The 60S will also have some mods that allow it to act as an attack helicopter or minesweeper.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
See, thats what I want for the army/marines. An attack helicopter that'll serve as a transport as well, sort of like Hueys from Vietnam, but less home made, and more, "we can do this and this and both just as well because we were built for it" not "I can do this but only in a half assed sort of way"
Thats why I'm interesting in the Osprey, which is supposed to fill the gap. Thing is, because its rotors aim at a slight downward rotation, there can be no Gatling guns/m240s on the sides for fear of shredding the rotors. So, from www.wikipedia.org, they're having one gatling gun be at the back, and they're considering putting on as a pod on the nose of the vehicle...isn't that common sense??? I mean it is still an attack copter.
 

dannybek

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2002
1,096
0
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
See, thats what I want for the army/marines. An attack helicopter that'll serve as a transport as well, sort of like Hueys from Vietnam, but less home made, and more, "we can do this and this and both just as well because we were built for it" not "I can do this but only in a half assed sort of way"
Thats why I'm interesting in the Osprey, which is supposed to fill the gap. Thing is, because its rotors aim at a slight downward rotation, there can be no Gatling guns/m240s on the sides for fear of shredding the rotors. So, from www.wikipedia.org, they're having one gatling gun be at the back, and they're considering putting on as a pod on the nose of the vehicle...isn't that common sense??? I mean it is still an attack copter.

The Osprey is to fill the role of the Phrog, not the Huey. The Marines are currently testing the AH-1Z and UH-1Y as upgrades to the current helos.

Edit:
Any even so, the Phrogs will still be around for sometime.
 

flyboy84

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2004
1,731
0
76
Originally posted by: dannybek
Originally posted by: TehMac
See, thats what I want for the army/marines. An attack helicopter that'll serve as a transport as well, sort of like Hueys from Vietnam, but less home made, and more, "we can do this and this and both just as well because we were built for it" not "I can do this but only in a half assed sort of way"
Thats why I'm interesting in the Osprey, which is supposed to fill the gap. Thing is, because its rotors aim at a slight downward rotation, there can be no Gatling guns/m240s on the sides for fear of shredding the rotors. So, from www.wikipedia.org, they're having one gatling gun be at the back, and they're considering putting on as a pod on the nose of the vehicle...isn't that common sense??? I mean it is still an attack copter.

The Osprey is to fill the role of the Phrog, not the Huey. The Marines are currently testing the AH-1Z and UH-1Y as upgrades to the current helos.

Edit:
Any even so, the Phrogs will still be around for sometime.

Actually, the CH-46 Seaknight (or phrog as you refer to it) is being replaced by the MH-60S Seahawk. Some actually refer to the S variant as the "Knighthawk" to reflect its legacy.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Well the CH-46's are awesome, the Hueys are too tbh, I knew it was acting as some sort of transport copter, but it also has tactical assault abilities, I read, so it'll be able to act a s a Cobra, or is meant to be anyway.
Because whenever I ask around marines on Base, thats all I'm told.
 

xXped0thugXx

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2004
1,885
1
0
Originally posted by: dannybek
Originally posted by: jemcam
M16's only jam when they're not properly maintained.

And I speak from experience, I served 15 years in the US Army. I NEVER had my weapon jam that peforming "SPORTS" couldn't fix.

SPORTS is an acronym for what to do to clear a jam:

Slap (the magazine)
Pull (the charging handle)
Observe (the open receiver for obstructions)
Release (the charging handle)
Tap (the forward assist)
Squeeze (the trigger)

Never failed. When I did get a jam, it was always because the weapon was dirty, like after firing several hundred rounds at the range. If you clean the weapon like your taught, the jamming is not a problem.

Again, I say this from experience. I know there's a lot of AK47 fan boys out there, but those things are inaccurate. With an M16, if I can see it, I can hit it in one shot every time if I had properly sighted it properly, which is only needed once a year even under the most extreme conditions.

End of discussion. The M16A1 and A2 never let me down and saved my life many times. I will always be a fan of them.

And before the AK47 fan boys step in and say "why should I have to clean it every day"? I answer by saying why wouldn't you take great care of the only thing that standing between you and death?

The first "S" is seek cover, but you knew that ;)
Nothing like a good TAP RACK BANG wouldn't fix.



TAP RACK BANG is the Marine Corps diddy.
 

xXped0thugXx

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2004
1,885
1
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx
I cant really complain about the jamming of a M16. I just got back from Fallujah , with all the sandstorms we had, never ever had a problem.

The only real complaint i have with the M16 is the stopping power, 5.56 ball rounds just dont have enough to put some guys to the ground (seriously i've seen it).

Although one can argue an AK is a reliable weapon, past 300 meters its worthless, thats the disadvantage. Obvious advantage is you can bury the f***er and pick it up and shoot it.


Just my 2 cents

I had the chance to fire the AK on full auto in Baghdad, and that pig is absolutely impossible to control -- another advantage of the M16 and its smaller round. I could get 2-3 rounds somewhere close to the target but just barely (3 was pushing it). Recoil was just too strong on automatic. I also really hated the fire selector on the AK.

They are painfully easy to use and reasonably accurate on single shot, and their reliability is well known. They do have their problems, however.

The MP5 -- now, THAT'S a fun weapon to shoot on full auto!



Yea i shot an AK on auto as well. No buttstock, so obvious no shoulder pressure thing jumped on me like you said really badly. I didnt even have a sheaf i dont think, course i was shooting into the middle of no where. Never shot an MP5.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
So anyway, we all agree to some degree, that while an amazing and somewhat reliable firearm, and very accurate, the M16 is getting dated. The government needs to find some alternatives that are more effective.
I think we also need to find the enemy more effectively before they can find us, and a way to do it that attracts less attention.
The Northrop Grumman RQ-8B Fire Scout is supposed to bridge this gap, its designed for Army, Navy, and Marines. Basically its an unmanned copter armed with a huge camera capable of scaling photos and a semi UAV only it doesn't need to fly at specified altitudes and you only need to program it for a mission, no control, or anything like that.
Crucial Specs:
Height: 9.42 FT
Engine: Rolls Royce Model 250-C20W
Speed...125+ knots
Ceiling...20,000FT
Endurance.5+Hours loiter at a combat radius of 110nm(200km)
Total Endurance...8+ hours with existing payload 5 hours:lifting 600lbs (272.2 kg)

Hrmm, so its a scout, but one that seems to be more versatile and more maneuverable. Its a vertical take off, and its designed for any environment.
 

spikespiegal

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2005
1,219
9
76
Up here in Michigan we have pretty liberal gun laws, and there's been more than a few times we've scared national guardsman off the gun range because we've had superior firepower.

I've fired numerous AK47's and most M16/AR15 incarnations, and I feel freee to comment on both. The AK is certainly a formidable weapon - if you're in a street fight. It's designed to throw down a lot of lead at no greater than 100meters, and do so with mediocre accuracy. Modern body armor will defeat a 7.62x39 round from an AK47 because the muzzle velocity isn't that high . Even with a good suppressor I've found muzzle rise to be a joke on the AK and groupings tough to keep in line greater than 50 meters. With due respect to Mr kalashnikov, the weapon is an appliance.

The M16 on the other hand is a totally different weapon. I've shot bowling pins dead center with M16's at 200meters and all they did was wobble while the round went clean through. Much better iron sights on the M16, and the barrel is far less prone to warping during repeated firing. The AK has a bigger round, but the 5.56mm M16 round can cut through a lot more metal. There's a lot of urban hype that AK has more penetrating power, but it doesn't. Much less than the M16.

Regardless, I don't like the M16's goofy recoil supression which tends to produce circular groupings rather than vertical ones. To me the guns feel a bit like a toy, with a vague recoil and takes awhile to learn it's weird traits. We have a rare Daewo DR-200 which takes M16 clips, and fixes all the problem on the M16. The Korean gun has smoother receiver, much better open sights, and a fraction the grouping deviance. It will also take 62grain better than all but the longer barrel M16s and is less prone to jamming. What the MP5 is to the 9mm the Daewo is to the 5.56.
 

xXped0thugXx

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2004
1,885
1
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
So anyway, we all agree to some degree, that while an amazing and somewhat reliable firearm, and very accurate, the M16 is getting dated. The government needs to find some alternatives that are more effective.
I think we also need to find the enemy more effectively before they can find us, and a way to do it that attracts less attention.
The Northrop Grumman RQ-8B Fire Scout is supposed to bridge this gap, its designed for Army, Navy, and Marines. Basically its an unmanned copter armed with a huge camera capable of scaling photos and a semi UAV only it doesn't need to fly at specified altitudes and you only need to program it for a mission, no control, or anything like that.
Crucial Specs:
Height: 9.42 FT
Engine: Rolls Royce Model 250-C20W
Speed...125+ knots
Ceiling...20,000FT
Endurance.5+Hours loiter at a combat radius of 110nm(200km)
Total Endurance...8+ hours with existing payload 5 hours:lifting 600lbs (272.2 kg)

Hrmm, so its a scout, but one that seems to be more versatile and more maneuverable. Its a vertical take off, and its designed for any environment.

In Fallujah we had a UAV, and a Boomerang (capable of giving distance and direction of enemy fire) and honestly didnt recieve much help from either. The UAV helped a little just because the remote detonations of IED's around the city by emitting a signal. Other than that very little but aerial maps came from it.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Well these copters are more manuverable and more versatile, from what I'm told. They're able to survey a wide area, and be able to be manuvered around much faster, and they're able to do everything by themselves, sending data back to ships or key setup points. its able to provided coverage 110nm from launch site (200km).
"The firescout can find identitfy, track, and designate targets, provide accurate targeting data to strike platforms, engage targets, and perform battle damage assessment."

Pretty neat.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: TehMac
Well these copters are more manuverable and more versatile, from what I'm told. They're able to survey a wide area, and be able to be manuvered around much faster, and they're able to do everything by themselves, sending data back to ships or key setup points. its able to provided coverage 110nm from launch site (200km).
"The firescout can find identitfy, track, and designate targets, provide accurate targeting data to strike platforms, engage targets, and perform battle damage assessment."

Pretty neat.

Why does a UAV have to be maneuverable?

I've heard of the Fire Scout but know very little about it. What strikes me immediately is the endurance time, which is not that long. Predator can stay up, IIRC, for nearly triple that time. Since dwell time is one of the biggest benefits of a UAV, that's a considerable asset.

There's a big future in micro UAVs, which are pretty amazing. With the cost and size, I wouldn't be surprised if every platoon has a UAV in the near future. The one I'm thinking of folds into a tube about two feet long and weighs less than a pound. Amazing stuff!
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
From what I've read, this can go places UAV can't, its designed for short endurance treks, because it is unmanned, programmable. This thing gets its mission programmed in, then it takes off, and they can access it anytime they need to, but its basically on its own, taking pictures, and survelliance. Its able to be launched from Jungles and Carriers (and cruisers).
I really don't know, but hopefully it helps.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
So I was talking to some army guys, and as far as they know, the Comanche Copter project hasn't been canceled...hrmm.
Interesting eh? Who to trust more, army or wikipedia.org.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Meh, thing is, the Russians have superior flying combat planes, but as proven in the various Cold Wars, they're armanment was behind ours, and their missiles sucked in comparison to ours.

Also, on a note from Wikipedia:
"However, on February 23, 2004, the U.S. Army announced their decision to cancel the Comanche helicopter program in view of the need to provide funds to renovate the existing helicopter fleet of aging attack, utility, and reconnaissance aircraft.
....the growing popularity in the military of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for reconnaissance purposes ? in addition to tests, UAVs had proven their worth in Afghanistan and Iraq. About US$8 billion had already been invested in the Comanche program at the time of its termination and an additional US$450-680 million was required in contract termination fees to main program partners Sikorsky and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.
...Technology developed for the Comanche will be integrated into the Apache and other U.S. military helicopter developments. Some of its roles will be taken over by the ARH-70, an off-the shelf armed reconnaissance helicopter."

Huh, so it wasn't engineered to be an attack copter anyway. It was meant to be a UAV that could guide missiles and have a machine gun--exactly what the RQ FireScout is meant to do, without risk of loss of life, so I guess thats alright then.