Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Oh please, the NASA of today isn't the NASA of the Apollo days. Back then they where able to get stuff done. Today they run 40-million-dollar taxi rides up to low earth orbit and can't even do that right.

I'm not saying Landwarrior isn't a good idea and isn't really fun and shiney to look at on paper and see guys running around on TV looking like something out of a Sci-Fi movie. But we're still using the M-16. The greatest technological improvement for the infantry in the last 50 years has been the camelbak. Our infantry need a lot more advancements in technology that they can actually take onto the field tomorrow than continually ****ing money into this pie-in-the-sky thing.

The #1 thing they should be worried about is getting our boys a decent modern rifle. We're 2 or 3 generations of fighter plane further than when the M-16 was invented. Why are we forcing the guys who take all the casualties to still be using the same generation of weapon as any poor Somalian can pick up off the street corner?

Then we need to work on getting our boys better lighter body armor. 2 years ago we where still having problems just getting armor on our fighting infantry. We need to do a much better job of getting better and lighter life-saving equipment on our infantry, who are, again, the one MOS who constantly take 25% of all casualties in modern wars.

Then we need to be exploring and getting better APC and IFV technologies. If an enemy as poor and inexperienced as Iraqi insurgents can consistaintly break through all our technology to kill and wound soldiers daily, multiple times daily, this is a huge problem. You don't think Iran, Syria, North Korea, and every war planner in the world isn't taking note? You can bet top dollar that in every war we fight from here on we are going to see an insurgentcy and an insurgentcy that will use roadside bombs.

If we can handle all that, then maybe, just maybe, we can start looking seriously at the OICW as a realistic compliament to the infantry squads for its lethality. It's a very ambitious weapons design and has been heald up over and over again as the techs are finally figuring out how big this bite they've taken out and now have to start chewing on. But as hard as the OICW is to actually get in the field, it's a cakewalk compared to how unrealistic landwarrior is.

I could go on with more. But our infantry is drastically underequipped and underfinanced compared to other fighting units. The fighter pilots have unprecendented technology at their disposal. The tankers have M1 Abrams tanks which have proven themselves in multiple wars over multiple decades to be one of the greatest tank designes in the history of warfare. Helicopter pilots have unprecedented lethality and survivability in their craft. But the humble workhore infantryman has been stuck with technology still on par with anything that can be picked up on a street corner in a 3rd world country. They deserve better. I would love to see the day when we can start talking about the landwarrior system but the truth is it's just a drain on resources that need to be better impliamented. It's one of those congress-darlings that pentagon R&D guys can take into the budget meetings to wow the politicians into more funding. It will be 10 years before it's even in the hands of the special operators, meanwhile the humble infantryman will still be trying to clean his M-16.

FYI: The M16 wasn't in U.S. Infantrymans hands until 1966. Besides, why fix something that isn't broken? We might use a similiar system to those of the enemy (the M16) but can he get ahold of an M203, AIMSPOT laser, SUREFIRE flashlight, and M885 Ball rounds. Anyone can get any weapon in the world. Besides most enemies prefer the AK.

Have you even seen the LW 2000 today? Take a look and the Janes Defense from last year.

What infantry in 1968 was armed with.



What troops in the current conflicts are armed with.

Well, I'm sure I don't have to correct you that the AR-15 was invented in 1956.

A lot of people hold the opinion you do but I see it as the same thing as upgrading an F-4 with modern electronics packages. At a point you're still dealing with antiquated technology. The people who are arguing for the M-16 I feel are the same sentimental people who would rather see the F-14 continue to be in service.

My list of grievences is long but for another thread; suffice it to say that jamming, weight, and length have proven insurmountable problems. The M-16 has done its job but it's time to embrace new abilities, new technology, new production methods, and frankly better products. Whether you do or not, it is obvious that the army brass agrees with my assessment of the M-16 or they wouldn't have been so initially bullish on the XM-8.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

It's a pipe dream. We're still using the same gun from the 1950s meanwhile they think they can put a computer on everyone through rain snow sleet hail bullets sandstorms mountains when the average American is happy when his PC makes it through the day without a restart? Ha!

Thats because the overall PC is made to do alot of different things, its nother matter when its designed for one specific task, which in this case is aid in war.

Originally Posted by AlexKall

Thats because the overall PC is made to do alot of different things, its nother matter when its designed for one specific task, which in this case is aid in war.

Look, I know all the technicals ins and outs. My point is that the landwarrior system is an extremely complex, specialized, and expensive system that solves problems which are not in the top 5 that the infantry is facing. That is something I want you to think about... think about the top 5 problems our infantrymen would like solved TODAY and I highly doubt landwarrior solves any of them.

Once we get next-gen rifels, lighter/better body armor, real APC/IFV capabilities, then it will be time to start talking about landwarrior. Right now it's a project that needs to be put on the back burner in favor of war-winning innovations, not made-for-TV press darlings.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Well, I'm sure I don't have to correct you that the AR-15 was invented in 1956.

A lot of people hold the opinion you do but I see it as the same thing as upgrading an F-4 with modern electronics packages. At a point you're still dealing with antiquated technology. The people who are arguing for the M-16 I feel are the same sentimental people who would rather see the F-14 continue to be in service.

My list of grievences is long but for another thread; suffice it to say that jamming, weight, and length have proven insurmountable problems. The M-16 has done its job but it's time to embrace new abilities, new technology, new production methods, and frankly better products. Whether you do or not, it is obvious that the army brass agrees with my assessment of the M-16 or they wouldn't have been so initially bullish on the XM-8.

Ok. And I guess thats why plans for such rilfe's have been in the making since the 70's.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

Ok. And I guess thats why plans for such rilfe's have been in the making since the 70's.

They had requested $26 million dollars funding for 7,000 rifles. That's not just "well what if" planning. If the army agreed that the M-16 is the greatest infantry weapon they wouldn't be trying to push $26 million dollars through congress.

Well it all seems very similar to the LAND 125 Soldier Combat System we've got in Australia.

•Soldier Personal Radio (SPR) – a low range, intra-section communications device.
•Thermal Weapon Sight (TWS) – for employment with the F88 Steyr rifle to improve the surveillance and target acquisition capability of small teams.
•Individual Combat Load Carriage Equipment (ICLCE) – an integrated, modular hip/chest webbing ensemble and large field pack.
•Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) – improved individual survivability.
•Personal Protective Padding (PPP) – elbow and knee pads.
•Dismounted Battle Management System (DBMS) and data capable Combat Net Radio (CNR) – a digital situational awareness and data management system to provide commanders with improved command and control functionality.
•Enhanced Steyr rifle and improved weapon optics – providing enhanced capabilities to the surveillance and target acquisition characteristics of small teams.
•Individual survivability components – candidate equipment may include improved and modular combat body armour, ballistic and laser ocular protection and hearing protection.

Thus demonstrated henceforth by our happy grunt from 1 RAR

Everyone I've spoken to about it seems to think it's all a bit pointless, and so do I. It's just another bit of kit to break or lose and forget how to use. And when the gear is non-combat-effective for what ever reason, how many soldiers will still be proficient in the field skills the Australian army learnt in Malaya, Borneo, and Vietnam that we still use today?

why does australia use steyrs? its wird

Ugh...those Australian cammies hurt my eyes...hard to be stealthy when you're wearing what looks to be 1970's wallpaper...

Originally Posted by AussieNick

Well it all seems very similar to the LAND 125 Soldier Combat System we've got in Australia.

•Soldier Personal Radio (SPR) – a low range, intra-section communications device.
•Thermal Weapon Sight (TWS) – for employment with the F88 Steyr rifle to improve the surveillance and target acquisition capability of small teams.
•Individual Combat Load Carriage Equipment (ICLCE) – an integrated, modular hip/chest webbing ensemble and large field pack.
•Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) – improved individual survivability.
•Personal Protective Padding (PPP) – elbow and knee pads.
•Dismounted Battle Management System (DBMS) and data capable Combat Net Radio (CNR) – a digital situational awareness and data management system to provide commanders with improved command and control functionality.
•Enhanced Steyr rifle and improved weapon optics – providing enhanced capabilities to the surveillance and target acquisition characteristics of small teams.
•Individual survivability components – candidate equipment may include improved and modular combat body armour, ballistic and laser ocular protection and hearing protection.

Thus demonstrated henceforth by our happy grunt from 1 RAR

Everyone I've spoken to about it seems to think it's all a bit pointless, and so do I. It's just another bit of kit to break or lose and forget how to use. And when the gear is non-combat-effective for what ever reason, how many soldiers will still be proficient in the field skills the Australian army learnt in Malaya, Borneo, and Vietnam that we still use today?

Ya, there was a joint Op going back in 99' I think.