US Army showcases newer equipment for combat troops in near future
26 replies, posted
[url=http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2016/06/01/18-ways-army-wants-make-you-deadlier/84852750/]Source[/url]
[quote]If you look at a soldier from World War II or Korea or Vietnam, you will see similarities to today’s infantryman: helmet, rifle, bullets, boots: the basics.
Naturally, there’s a lot of differences, too. In five years, there will be more, and 15 years, more still, as the Army works to keep the technological edge of the dismounted combat troop.
As wide-ranging as they are, both near-term and long-term advances sought by the Army reveal some emerging themes.
The Army wants soldiers better protected, but also lighter and more agile.
The Army wants better situational awareness, including improved vision at night.
The Army wants to empower smaller units with more portable versions of tech now available to higher echelons.
But what about your guns? Improvements may be more incremental. Physics have limits and so do budgets. But the Army is upgrading carbines with a more reliable barrel, it has picked out a new sniper rifle and it is working to do the same for a new handgun.[/quote]
[img]http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/67369be21bfc317600b9ceb00317be696572fe35/r=x408&c=540x405/http/cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/daf3abd6a0bc7d4182ef759ca62ae0c717584a50/c=434-0-5414-3744/local/-/media/2015/07/23/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635732561416138325-ARM-FWS-I-ENVG-III-MRT-2.JPG[/img]
[img]http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/67369be21bfc317600b9ceb00317be696572fe35/r=x408&c=540x405/http/cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/e8c2b07f00758ff9179460efe3138d12b68b3366/c=0-91-2253-1785/local/-/media/2016/05/25/GGM/MilitaryTimes/635997872881205812-Solar-panel.JPG[/img]
And in another 20 years the Marine Corps will be getting the 2016 Army Tech!
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50438903]And in another 20 years the Marine Corps will be getting the 2016 Army Tech![/QUOTE]
That is a very generous estimate [I]sir[/I].
[QUOTE=Cocacoladude;50439076]That is a very generous estimate [I]sir[/I].[/QUOTE]
Don't call him sir. He works for a living, and his parents were definitely not related.
So add scopes to everything?
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50439275]So add ultra futuristic scopes to FUCKIN' RANCID M4's[/QUOTE]
ftfy
But really now, isn't the M4A1 old and problematic as FUCK?
Are those solar panels on the backpack? That's pretty cool.
Every time I hear about these new future soldier programme equipment being released, I think of:
[img]http://terminallance.com/wp-content/uploads/comics/2012-08-24-Strip_220_Issued_web.gif[/img]
Why can't they just give them exoskeletons.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50439286]ftfy
But really now, isn't the M4A1 old and problematic as FUCK?[/QUOTE]
Nope. The M4 platform has performed swimmingly since '03 and few have seen the need to replace it. The HK416 seems like a worthwhile alternative, but since it's literally double the cost of the M4 for not much of a difference, it's a big "no".
There's a reason why the US and Russia, unlike every other country's military, have largely stayed with the same designs since the early 70s, with only some tweaks here and there.
In addition to the new toys, the US Army has seen fit to adopt the [url=http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/06/01/each-platoon-get-carl-gustsaf/85246292/]Carl Gustav[/url]
Is T E P the US Army's Virtus?
Here in the UK we got Virtus to replace our Osprey kit, apparently it's hot shit.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50439470]Because the technology required to power said exoskeletons hasn't reached "not fuckhuge" status. There are some interesting prototypes but they aren't anywhere near ready for deployment.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty much the "minigun of wearables", since the minigun is usually depicted as something that a person could carry, but in reality, needs a power source, making it not portable at all.
[editline]2nd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50439626]Nope. The M4 platform has performed swimmingly since '03 and few have seen the need to replace it. The HK416 seems like a worthwhile alternative, but since it's literally double the cost of the M4 for not much of a difference, it's a big "no".
There's a reason why the US and Russia, unlike every other country's military, have largely stayed with the same designs since the early 70s, with only some tweaks here and there.[/QUOTE]
But they look so boring :(
We need some goddamn boxy OICW's here!
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50439626]Nope. The M4 platform has performed swimmingly since '03 and few have seen the need to replace it. The HK416 seems like a worthwhile alternative, but since it's literally double the cost of the M4 for not much of a difference, it's a big "no".
There's a reason why the US and Russia, unlike every other country's military, have largely stayed with the same designs since the early 70s, with only some tweaks here and there.[/QUOTE]
What about the FN SCAR? I always figured that would be the next standard issue, but it doesn't seem that it catched on.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50439470]Because the technology required to power said exoskeletons hasn't reached "not fuckhuge" status. There are some interesting prototypes but they aren't anywhere near ready for deployment.[/QUOTE]
They have used prototypes all the time, the power problem is one of the biggest but also the expense of such a product is currently the worst problem.
The smart grenade launcher sounds cool and it's something we have been trying to bring to the market for decades now
Most of the stuff is going to get cancelled or go vastly over budget in my opinion. Every time the Army sets out to get a new anything it turns into a long protracted out ordeal that ultimately leads to something less than desirable. Really the only program I've seen in the last 10-15 years that has looked promising is the LSAT along with it's caseless ammunition, but even then nothing like that will probably be adopted for another 20 years.
[QUOTE=Kecske;50439882]What about the FN SCAR? I always figured that would be the next standard issue, but it doesn't seem that it catched on.[/QUOTE]
SCAR was a SOCOM program and even then, they determined that the Mk 16 wasn't enough of an improvement over the M4 to warrant a complete replacement. SOCOM likes the Mk 17 in 7.62 though
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50439286]ftfy
But really now, isn't the M4A1 old and problematic as FUCK?[/QUOTE]
The M16 family might have a few issues with reliability and stopping power, but there are easy fixes being impelemented.
With the reliability thing, it's a simple matter of regular cleaning and being careful not to get sand and shit in the weapon. The dust cover is there for a reason, use it.
As far as stopping power goes, we're kind of limited. 5.56 is a low-diameter, low-mass round developed with weight-saving and increased round-count in mind.
That being said, the M855A1 cartridge now in use is supposed to be a substantial improvement over the old M855 greentips most of us military types are no-doubt familiar with. It's right up near the limit for chamber pressure, and the two-piece projectile apparently fragments when it impacts something like an AK magazine in a chest rig. It's also much better than opening wound channels than the green tip ammo. Anecdotally, one or two hits is enough to put someone down, rather than the 6-8 required from greentip ammo.
I think in the future every soldier will be issued their own pet drone, in the same way they get issued rifles and such. The drones, armed of course, can then be set to attack while under the control of someone in the fight. Meanwhile the regular big drones are also circling around higher up and doing their thing.
Imagine an attack consisting of thousands of troops advancing while thousands of small drones swarm ahead, while UAVs rain destruction down and guided missiles hit key pinpoint targets. Helicopters and planes have to wait in line to get in their shots at the left overs, saving pilots from unnecessary danger.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;50440337]I think in the future every soldier will be issued their own pet drone, in the same way they get issued rifles and such. The drones, armed of course, can then be set to attack while under the control of someone in the fight. Meanwhile the regular big drones are also circling around higher up and doing their thing.
Imagine an attack consisting of thousands of troops advancing while thousands of small drones swarm ahead, while UAVs rain destruction down and guided missiles hit key pinpoint targets. Helicopters and planes have to wait in line to get in their shots at the left overs, saving pilots from unnecessary danger.[/QUOTE]
In the future, those mini drones would be controlled by someone in a base hundreds or thousands of miles away, likewise for those helicopters and planes.
Also I didn't think 'thousands of troops advancing' is a conventional military tactic. It certainly wouldn't be in the future.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;50440199]The M16 family might have a few issues with reliability and stopping power, but there are easy fixes being impelemented.
With the reliability thing, it's a simple matter of regular cleaning and being careful not to get sand and shit in the weapon. The dust cover is there for a reason, use it.
As far as stopping power goes, we're kind of limited. 5.56 is a low-diameter, low-mass round developed with weight-saving and increased round-count in mind.
That being said, the M855A1 cartridge now in use is supposed to be a substantial improvement over the old M855 greentips most of us military types are no-doubt familiar with. It's right up near the limit for chamber pressure, and the two-piece projectile apparently fragments when it impacts something like an AK magazine in a chest rig. It's also much better than opening wound channels than the green tip ammo. Anecdotally, one or two hits is enough to put someone down, rather than the 6-8 required from greentip ammo.[/QUOTE]
5.56 is nice, but it's basically just a longer, heavier, and faster .22 round. They're too small, or too fast, or both, to do the damage you want, especially to some insurgent pumped full of drugs like the ones we've been fighting for the past 15 years. Unless you hit bone and render them physically unable to run, they'll just walk it off for any number of seconds, all of which are too many. 7.62 rounds are slow and fat by comparison and the hydrostatic shock alone from one of those can shred some organs, but 5.56 can very nearly pass clean through
But hey, a 7.62 round weighs nearly double a 5.56 round. When you're carrying 100+ pounds of shit as it is, you're saving just over 5 POUNDS by carrying it instead of 7.62, assuming you're carrying 210 rounds
I used the HK416 in the army and it's a really good rifle
It's terribly expensive over here though
Think it was around 2000 dollars for the whole gear
[QUOTE=TheTalon;50440418]5.56 is nice, but it's basically just a longer, heavier, and faster .22 round. They're too small, or too fast, or both, to do the damage you want, especially to some insurgent pumped full of drugs like the ones we've been fighting for the past 15 years. Unless you hit bone and render them physically unable to run, they'll just walk it off for any number of seconds, all of which are too many. 7.62 rounds are slow and fat by comparison and the hydrostatic shock alone from one of those can shred some organs, but 5.56 can very nearly pass clean through
But hey, a 7.62 round weighs nearly double a 5.56 round. When you're carrying 100+ pounds of shit as it is, you're saving just over 5 POUNDS by carrying it instead of 7.62, assuming you're carrying 210 rounds[/QUOTE]
5.56 is great at penetrating armor, not so great when the fighters have none. the US army can't exactly ignore the fact that they could have to fight against highly equipped and armored people someday, the wars in the middle east have been the equivalent to the colonial wars before ww1, we still have to be ready to fight equipped forces
[editline]1st June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50439913]Most of the stuff is going to get cancelled or go vastly over budget in my opinion. Every time the Army sets out to get a new anything it turns into a long protracted out ordeal that ultimately leads to something less than desirable. Really the only program I've seen in the last 10-15 years that has looked promising is the LSAT along with it's caseless ammunition, but even then nothing like that will probably be adopted for another 20 years.[/QUOTE]
eh most of the things on that list are already at the stage where they're being funded to completion (baring some unforeseen problem)
i have a feeling all those weird power harvesting things will be scrapped as batteries get better, that is the whole reason to have those to begin with, except for the solar panel because there are some low powered gadgets they could use it with
Remember in the early 2000s with all that future warrior tech ? I feel this will go down the same path
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.