• What if...? This concept helicopter wins a $100Bn Pentagon contract?
    178 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45303628]Our opponents have actually made the job easier for us though. With the advent of other countries using chobham armor, the A-10's GAU-8 has been relegated to COIN operations instead of its original anti-tank role. With more and more being done by missile than by specialized gun/airframe, its completely feasible to do the same job as the A-10 with a less specialized airframe. [editline]5th July 2014[/editline] The osprey is an abortion in and of itself..[/QUOTE] It is, but it's a damn good replacement for the seaknight, which right now there's air frames flying that are over 50 years old. They just need to get it's maintenance closer to 15-16 hours per flight hour. I've got no clue when that's going to happen, especially when the government is buying new securing pins at $50 a pop (when they sell at the hardware store for $2.50)
[QUOTE=SexualShark;45299800][img]http://www.xboxrepublika.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2392&stc=1&d=1313272285[/img][/QUOTE] This is definitely more aesthetic.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45303999]Gotta pay the MIC somehow, how else would they shit on gold plated toilet seats if they didn't charge 50$ for a cotter pin. [editline]5th July 2014[/editline] And hopefully this thing takes 24 years to come to fruition. Hopefully they take the time to create a system that actually works, and has a good safety record.[/QUOTE] The absolute worst is when they charge full price for "new" things like radiators when you can clearly tell they've been rebuilt. Boeing really likes to do that one.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45299487]Why aren't we calling the F35 the M14 of jets, or this the M14 of helicopters? I guess nobody remembers the time the Military tried to replace every rifle with the M14 :v:[/QUOTE] Don't you mean M16? Because I recall the M14 being an actually pretty good rifle, while the M16 was poopie
[QUOTE=Ashes;45304043]Don't you mean M16? Because I recall the M14 being an actually pretty good rifle, while the M16 was poopie[/QUOTE] The M14 was heavy, its recoil immense, and it was complicated. The M16 failed during the early years of Vietnam because of the ignorance of the US military higher-ups. They did not issue cleaning kits to soldiers, and they used a different type of powder to "save money" (roughly .5 cents every 100 rounds, iirc) which gummed up the internals.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45304121]The M14 was heavy, its recoil immense, and it was complicated. The M16 failed during the early years of Vietnam because of the ignorance of the US military higher-ups. They did not issue cleaning kits to soldiers, and they used a different type of powder to "save money" (roughly .5 cents every 100 rounds, iirc) which gummed up the internals.[/QUOTE] And that's why we still have forward assists on M16s today.
the whole video and the chopper itself looks like something out of starship troopers
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45304157]Stoner actually hated the idea of the forward assist. Saying that if there was something preventing it from going into battery, it's probably not safe to jam it into battery.[/QUOTE] My favorite thing was as part of the "quick fix" they milled out a portion of the bolt carrier group so that the bolt would ride with it, which allows it to fire out of battery. Stoner knew what he was doing when he designed it, the brass were the one who ducked it up.
bretty cool but it will be shit everytime militaries try to get a "one size fits all" solution its a big fucking waste of money. [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45304121]The M14 was heavy, its recoil immense, and it was complicated. The M16 failed during the early years of Vietnam because of the ignorance of the US military higher-ups. They did not issue cleaning kits to soldiers, and they used a different type of powder to "save money" (roughly .5 cents every 100 rounds, iirc) which gummed up the internals.[/QUOTE] Ironically, as much as people lump shit on the M16 on the internet, if you actually read reports and documents from the later part of the vietnam, the M16 was widely loved.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45304262]And it took 3 variants before it turned pretty decent. The quality of the A4 could have been reached by the A1 if the army had just listened to stoner and used the proper powder, and the proper cleaning systems. Or... you know.. just took it in its original designation (the AR-10). Chambered in glorious 7.62x51, the thing was a beast. 5.56 was adopted due to project SALVO, a doctrine that we don't even use anymore.[/QUOTE]Hell, they could have gone with what is now the M1A and gave the M14 to anyone who truly needed it, right along with the M21. Having those three in service would have been awesome, they all share common parts and they're basically the same exact rifle. (more or less) Let's say they went with the AR-10, they still could have done all of that anyway. There's been so many modifications on the AR platform, and if the military hadn't fucked everything up and listened to Stoner... Shit, the AR could have been as common as the AK is today, and in so many different flavors. Maybe in an alternate timeline that's what happened, and there's alternate versions of us talking about what would have happened if the military didn't listen to Stoner.
I like how the demo vehicle is assuming we're still going to be fighting in Afghanistan when it enters service.
[QUOTE=Ilwrath;45299267]While I do agree it's ridiculous, I believe they pointed out the reason why the pods retract into the cargo compartment in the video; "reloading armaments while airborne", Implying there'd be either extra pods or rockets in the cargo and crew there to reload them once they're retracted inside. And they're not implying it can do both gunship and troop transport in one go, but that it can be configured for either.[/QUOTE] He's specifically somewhat peeved that they can't be configured to do either. Since the dawn of helicopters, America has had some ideological issue with the concept of a gunship transport. The Huey could not load both people and weaponry. The attack Blackhawk variant was never put into service. And now again, despite the chance to fix that, we make sure that yet again the US will not have a gunship transport. I [I]quite[/I] like the idea of being able to reload mid flight though, and the guns being there will not stop operator as fuck units from carrying troops in the cargo-hold even with the guns present, but it's a bit of a shame that right now, external pylons aren't planned.
[QUOTE=Mebit;45298666]$100 Billion? I wasn't aware the US had cleared their trillions of dollars of debt and a owned a flourishing economic situation with no poverty meaning they had billions left over to buy more death machines for future pointless wars.[/QUOTE] Cause when your nation is in debt you must use all of your money to pay said debt, not focus on nation-wide programs, or the wars that you're involved in. A++ payed attention in Gov and economics.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45304262]And it took 3 variants before it turned pretty decent. The quality of the A4 could have been reached by the A1 if the army had just listened to stoner and used the proper powder, and the proper cleaning systems. Or... you know.. just took it in its original designation (the AR-10). Chambered in glorious 7.62x51, the thing was a beast. 5.56 was adopted due to project SALVO, a doctrine that we don't even use anymore.[/QUOTE] Honestly it was pretty good at the A2. The A3 is just an A1 lower on an A2 upper (full auto instead of burst) and the A4 is just an A2 with a removable carry handle and quadrail. Now we want to talk big difference then we look at say the 416 or the M27 IAR.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45304574]Hell, they could have gone with what is now the M1A and gave the M14 to anyone who truly needed it, right along with the M21. Having those three in service would have been awesome, they all share common parts and they're basically the same exact rifle. (more or less) Let's say they went with the AR-10, they still could have done all of that anyway. There's been so many modifications on the AR platform, and if the military hadn't fucked everything up and listened to Stoner... Shit, the AR could have been as common as the AK is today, and in so many different flavors. Maybe in an alternate timeline that's what happened, and there's alternate versions of us talking about what would have happened if the military didn't listen to Stoner.[/QUOTE] Hell there's even a belt fed AR-10 [img]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff160/nosepiece/AR-10LMG.jpg[/img] Only about 50 years before someone made a belt fed upper for the AR-15.
the difference between an AK and an AR is that anyone can pick up an AK and fire it and hit something with a few minutes of training, the AR however requires training to operate and hit things with, its a better gun, its more accurate and much more versitile but the AK will always be as ubiquitous as the shovels it can be made out of
[QUOTE=Sableye;45305678]the difference between an AK and an AR is that anyone can pick up an AK and fire it and hit something with a few minutes of training, the AR however requires training to operate and hit things with, its a better gun, its more accurate and much more versitile but the AK will always be as ubiquitous as the shovels it can be made out of[/QUOTE] Both are easy to pick up and shoot. The differences in training are miniscule, and thus whatever differences there is are small. ARs also have almost no recoil, making them an easier platform to begin shooting with. The training requirement of the firearms really had nothing to do with why AKs are so prolific.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;45305514]Honestly it was pretty good at the A2. The A3 is just an A1 lower on an A2 upper (full auto instead of burst) and the A4 is just an A2 with a removable carry handle and quadrail. Now we want to talk big difference then we look at say the 416 or the M27 IAR.[/QUOTE] I love the A4, looks so cool.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;45305909]I love the A4, looks so cool.[/QUOTE] It looks cool, but if you don't have rail covers it feels like your holding a cheese grater.
Honestly, this thing seems like it should be marketed commercially, rather than military. Seems like it'd be a sweet candidate for rough terrain transportation. If its that fuel efficient, capable, and modular, it'd do great in Private Aviation.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45301137]That's not the DoD's job though. That's NASA's. It's unsurprising that the DoD would indeed spend the money on defense.[/QUOTE] Maybe the department of defense should get less money
[QUOTE=Matrix374;45298620]Well the Chinook couldn't change into gunship like this thing is supposedly able to do[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8DAL7gPYBiM/TU4WybaTy5I/AAAAAAAAAvI/BWqYySw6Z-4/s1600/ACH-47A.jpg[/IMG] Also this whole thing will probably go all "Pentagon Wars"
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;45305386]Cause when your nation is in debt you must use all of your money to pay said debt, not focus on nation-wide programs, or the wars that you're involved in. [B]A++ payed attention in Gov and economics.[/B][/QUOTE] A++, paid attention in English.
I want to know who are the competitors. Cause if this is the only one up for the contract, then fuck this.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45304157]Stoner actually hated the idea of the forward assist. Saying that if there was something preventing it from going into battery, it's probably not safe to jam it into battery.[/QUOTE] He hated a lot of things. Early m16 builds were way shorter in effective range, but way more lethal. Since 5.56 relies on tumbling to do damage, early builds of the rifle had fewer twists of rifling in the barrel, so as to promote tumbling on impact. The rounds would take serpentine paths through soft tissue and often destroy multiple organs with a single round. The military wanted accuracy beyond 250 meters though. A valid desire, but it had a fairly significant negative impact on effectiveness, which apparently annoyed him. His rifle worked well, the end product worked like crap. [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=zerglingv2;45306539][IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8DAL7gPYBiM/TU4WybaTy5I/AAAAAAAAAvI/BWqYySw6Z-4/s1600/ACH-47A.jpg[/IMG] Also this whole thing will probably go all "Pentagon Wars"[/QUOTE] Chinooks lack the lift to volume ratio necessary to be armored. They will always be poorly suited to just about everything. Except for speed. Fuckers can move. Blackhawks on the other hand are extremely effective gunships in the right hands. If memory serves, the Nightstalkers pitted the apache against the blackhawk to serve as their gunship and apparently the blackhawk dominated. The blackhawk is surprisingly flexible.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45304952]Are you implying that the military listens to engineers? Because that'd be smart. To be fair, the AR-15 would be great (more than it is, as is it's pretty decent) if they used project SALVO's tactics still.. but they dont... They literally adopted the rifle that was supposed to use flechette rounds, and said "yea lets use 5.56 ball instead". The rifle is literally designed for a concept that isn't even used.[/QUOTE]At least it didn't wind up like the H&K CAWS, which is probably one of my most favorite weapons of all time. Like, everything about the weapon was promising, it functioned exactly as it was designed and well within SALVO's parameters. However the military was like "wait, it can't shoot a billion meters away, we can't use this" and the project was cancelled. Can you imagine using a supercharged full/semi-auto 12 gauge in urban combat that's loaded with badass flechette shells? That would be motherfucking devastating, especially if they developed short-range/point-blank ammunition, perhaps 00 buckshot or something. [editline]6th July 2014[/editline] Great Odin's raven, where the hell did that fourth page come from!?
Nico to see that Xcom finally finished their research.
[QUOTE=Mbbird;45306544]A++, paid attention in English.[/QUOTE] Fuck I just realized I capitalised gov and not economics. I must now commit sudoku.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;45306792]Fuck I just realized I capitalised gov and not economics. I must now commit sudoku.[/QUOTE] That was not the mistake he was highlighting.
ARMA III DLC confirmed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.