Ideas for Light Infanty Upgrades.

An article on FCS, at least the funding aspects.
I'm not just picking on the Army, all one has to do is look at the cost over-runs in other DoD programs...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...y-future-combat-systems-as-costly-lesson.html

 

Sorry that yur still burned on the F-15 analogy---but my focus is understanding the best tools for grunts to use on patrol that can be found in the toolbox. Good commo is one important part, and I know very little about that tech.

Basic man-portable weapons is a main focus of the OP. If Uncle Sam is going to shell out millions for one basic fighter, then for about the the same price put a whole divison of fighting grunts (not the support) in the latest sexy MBR's, probably with gadgets inculded. For some $5,000, each infantryman that carries a rifle could get an HK 417. Why should just the SEALS and D-Boys get these?

 

I'm not burned, and don't take anything I post too seriously.

Just bored with political discussions and I have an interest in things, military related.

The thread seemed active so I make a lot of comments to keep the conversation going.

The Army is a large institution, with a lot of needs to be met, not the least of which is personnel (labor costs) and maintenance costs (fuel, parts etc.)...
with a limited budget, I'm don't know how far up the ladder a new rifle is in terms of immediate needs. This new radio is a good thing, it will be fielded in Afghanistan and
they can utilize it this year...

A new rifle is probably further down the road.

It's not as easy as buying new off the shelf rifles and shipping them to A-Stan.

The military has a requisition process with numerous channels to go through.

 

Need to eliminate the standing army, isnt suppose to exist in the first place

 

Because clearly the governmental framework designed for a tiny agrarian nation 250 years ago still meets the needs of its massive superpower offspring in the information age.

 

Are Marines being used that way much anymore are they? I mean attacking after marching somewhere on foot, as opposed to dismounting shortly prior to engaging.

Actually on that note and the discusion of rifles, how hard is it to cross train with them? Countries seem to like to have standard rifles, suited to what they think they might be doing a lot of. Germans have their G36 battle rifle, wheras Israelis have their little bulpup Tavor minis. And people debate the merits of one or the other for different situations.

But it seems that what you'd really want is a selection of rifles depending on if you're expecting a long range fight in some afgan hills or if you're going to be kicking in doors in a city.

Well yes, I thought that was the whole reason for the Growler. You can drop it off anywhere a V-22 can reach, and it can drive around something to heavy for guys on foot.

Do you still feel that is true in the era of drones, between long loitering high altitude ones and small hummingbird size ones that perch on windows?

Unless you want to just level buildings yes. But "heavy" infantry can do that too. Yes?

My impression is that while soldiers will fight where orderer with what they have, the role of preferentially using light infantry over guys with all the armor add ons and whatnot would be in terrain that stops the approach of vehicles and when you want to parachute in.

 

Because it is a 7.62mm round. Not really suited for general infantry use. It is also a rather complex rifle, and once again not exactly suited for general infantry use.

 

Not to mention normally a few years of testing, and then training prior to their being implemented.

One of the beauties of all the weapons we have had for over 40 years is that they are all pretty much the same. Train somebody to use the M-16A1, they can use the A2, M4, or any of the other variants with almost no additional training needed. And 98% of the parts for one work on the other (making field repairs a snap).

 

Do not think the sonditions we are fighting in today will always remain the same. We train the way we train so we can fulfill and accomplish many different missions. And yes, we were attacking just this way only a few years ago on a regular basis.

And you are confusing Marine Infantry with Army Infantry, and we have already been all over that. Marines are Light Infantry, Army has a great many different mechanized and air mobile Infantry units.

It is not hard to train, but it takes time to build up accuracy. Each weapon acts and reacts differently, and the loss of accuracy because of new rifles can mean the difference between troops winning a battle, and returning home in steel cases.

And yes, people will always claim this or that or the other is the best. That is called "personal opinion". It may be right, it may be wrong, does not matter. The weapons of the US have been tested and upgraded until they are among the finest on the planet. Accurate, light weight, easy to fix, and suitable for use in the jungle, desert, mountains, or in a city.

And I am not all that impressed with the Tavor. It tries to be a jack of all trades, but is really only good for close in fighting.

400 meter range (half that of the M-16), short and light (not very usefull as a hand weapon), and the bullpup design has never really impressed me. And why the same weapon adaptable to 3 different calibers? 5.56 NATO, 5.56 mini, and 9mm. We have not used submachine guns in years.

I do not support change for the sake of change.

No, you generally do not. That is why the US tries as hard as they can so that everybody pretty much uses the same rifle, or a light variant thereof.

And what do you think "long range" is? The M16 series is accurate up to 500-800 meters away. Trust me when I say you are not going to be shooting at targets further then that. You can't even make them out really past 500 meters, because the front sight is larger then your target is.

And also, on patrol you constantly change conditions. Your FOB might be on the edge of a town, and your patrol is going to take you through the town, then along some fields, then up a small hill to set up an OP for a few hours before returning. Are you going to have everybody lug around 3 different weapons, with 3 different amunitions?

Now that is a complete waste.

The idea of the MUTT and GROWLER is to help increase the mobility and ammo capability of heavy weapons units (specifically mortars). These are not patrol vehicles, no armor, and certainly not suited for every situation. And the very reason for patrols is to get a ground level, up close and personal view of the situation. Just like cops walking a beat, grunts are often most effective when they are boots on the ground, not cruising around in vehicles.

Yes, more so then ever before. Drones can't talk to people.

No, we do not want to "level buildings". That is a good way to get lots of innocent civilians killed. They may not matter to you, but they do to us. We try to minimize damage and collateral casualties whenever possible.

And even "light infantry" has an amazing amount of firepower. We can completely level a building with just the weapons in a regular Weapons Company. Even "Light Infantry" has mortars, rocket launchers, and automatic grenade launchers and heavy machine guns. Trust me, we can easily level most small sized towns with just that alone.

The reason you use what you do all depends on what the mission is. Other factors then develop, such as logistical support available, if it is a pass-through mission, or one of occupation, support available, I can just go on and on and on.

But forgive me if I tell you that most of your beliefs and opinions are very wrong.