|
WRT JIT - that was never intended to military logistics, which use both "Push" and "Pull" with increasing amounts of stockpiling at each echelon, from 3 days supply at the lowest tactical level to several weeks (minimum) at theatre level.* The idea of JIT munitions is loving insane. How on earth could you supply munitions as-needed on a rapidly evolving battlefield? You would never be able to get out of any sort of hole you were dug into, and units would have to surrender immediately if supply was cut for even a day. Instead, fresh water, food, ammo and POL are constantly dumped on units by their supplying echelons because by the time they realize they will need extra, they won't be able to wait for supply to deliver it to them - there is no time. Any combat unit performing any function will always need those supplies, so there is no need to request them, or for them to be delivered on an as-needed basis. If they are in the field, they are consuming those supplies, so what benefit would there be to waiting for a request? They're standard consumables, there's no question that they need them. Why would you keep them hovering on the precipice of running out by not allowing for a stockpile? For instance, what's the harm of a unit having 3 days ammunition on hand? Why would it be easier for the logisticians to run up supply, possibly under fire, at random times instead of on a schedule which allows the limited (and shrinking in a war) assets of the Service Battalion to support the entire Brigade and keep supplies flowing? That's only possible if there are stockpiles on either end, and the REMFs can create dumps near tank laagers and gun positions to loop through and drop off their supplies rapidly rather than sorting through who ordered what or whatever. Having said that, western military leadership is full of MBA brain and much of the supporting logistics and infrastructure that would make something like the Red Ball Express even possible has been dissolved. They might claim there's some benefit, but these are ideologically informed changes with negative side effects, not any sort of optimizations. Which, as someone pointed out ITT, war is neither optimized nor efficient - nor should it be! Every material advantage possible should be applied whenever possible, not just enough to meet success or whatever. That removes any margin for error - or the enemy - loving up those perfectly laid plans. *In theory. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 21:13 on Feb 3, 2024 |
#
¿
Feb 3, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This seems like a bad boat. The shipbuilder owns a province. Look up the Irving family, and all will be revealed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:See thread title National Strategies and Policies: Effectively addressing foreign state information manipulation requires countries to go beyond “monitor-and-report” approaches, to include developing and implementing strategies to counter this threat. These policies should ensure safeguards for freedom of expression, protection for marginalized groups, transparency in media ownership, and a commitment to protect elections from foreign malign influence. Governance Structures and Institutions: Marshaling and administering a national-level approach to countering foreign state information manipulation requires designated governance structures and institutions within governments. The ability to organize dedicated government institutions to lead and coordinate national efforts, international engagement, and fact-based digital communication on foreign information manipulation is key to this effort. Human and Technical Capacity: Effectively countering foreign state information manipulation requires technical means and human capacity to maintain threat awareness. Building effective capacity includes investing in digital security tools that can detect foreign state information manipulation and ensuring interoperability between government partners working to counter this threat. Civil Society, Independent Media, and Academia: Civil society, independent media, and academia can play essential roles in informing and supporting government-led initiatives to counter foreign state information manipulation. Countering foreign state information manipulation is best done when governments protect and support the role of independent media, promote independent fact checking and media and digital literacy, and welcome public advocacy on the issue. Multilateral Engagement: Multilateral organizations that leverage international cooperation to counter and build resilience against foreign state information manipulation are indispensable to alleviating information and capability shortfalls across partner nations. The Way Forward: A broad coalition of like-minded partners is key to successfully countering foreign information manipulation, as each country brings different strengths, capacities, and resources to offer. The United States calls on partner countries committed to promoting open and fact-based information environments, free from foreign information manipulation, to endorse the Key Action Areas included in the Framework and to begin working towards a coordinated approach to this transnational threat. This will all end in tears
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 20:10
|
|
|
Gen X delenda est https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XSLJsuBoYI
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQQwm7N_mY
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
lol so rather than offering anyone anything, their big plan is naked coercion? The lack of self awareness, particularly " the absence of any sense of shared obligation to fellow-citizens that the post-Nixonian military recruitment system has fostered. " is wild.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 05:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Hey FF I wanted to a follow-up on Bidwell's "Fire-Power" It really is a great book. Pgs 91 and 134 mention it, as you say, but yeah not a great explanation. Pg 148 of Gunfire!: British Artillery in World War II gives a more in-depth explanation, with graph, but I can't scan it. Page 140 also says "sometimes the paperwork was as mentioned very challenging..." but I'll try to explain it: Predicted Fire is the application of massive amount of paperwork. The idea is that you have large artillery staffs that crunch numbers to plot out where shells will land, rather than registering targets with spotting rounds or relying on observed fires to make corrections. Instead, you calculate all of the corrections that need to be made on a shell's flight, before it is fired. It's a combination of ballistics, meteorology, and mathematics. Calculating where shells were predicted to land in advance of opening fire allowed CW gunners to deliver accurate* and effective artillery fire without alerting the enemy to which targets were in the fire plan, thereby maintaining the element of surprise and maximizing the destructive potential of their opening salvos. * In the graph on Pg 148 of Gunfire you can see the accuracy of predicted fire on CB targets during the Rhine crossings. 5.1% of rounds landed within 100m CEP. That was still more than enough to suppress the German batteries. At the heart of Predicted Fire is ballistics. CW artillery officers needed to account for a myriad of factors that influenced a shell's flight path, from the resistance it encountered in the air to the gravitational pull that drew it towards the earth, as well as spin drift and the Earth's rotation. Each of these elements needed to be calculated (reasonably) correctly to predict where a shell would land. The trajectory of an artillery shell was also at the mercy of the weather. Artillery units relied on detailed weather reports, noting the speed and direction of the wind at various altitudes, the temperature and pressure of the air, and its humidity levels. These variables could drastically alter a shell's path, and accurate weather data was indispensable for adjusting firing parameters to ensure that shells hit their intended targets. We still have Meteorological sections today, though they don't work nearly as hard as the technology has gotten much, much better. The calculations required to integrate all these variables were complex, especially during the Great War, before mechanical computing. CW artillery officers used tables and, in some cases in the Second World War, early mechanical computing devices to derive the correct angles and charges needed for effective fire. This process was supported by precise surveying and mapping techniques that pinpointed the locations of both the guns and the target. This is why we have the Recce/Survey sections, though again, they don't work nearly as hard in the era of GPS and INS. There is an incredibly in depth explanation, with full-page glossy maps in the two volumes of The Development of Artillery Tactics and Equipment by BGen A.L. Pemberton.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 15:13
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:FF for fucks sake log off from your sockpuppet I'm trying to keep a low profile in the IP thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 15:38
|
|
|
I don't have Fly Molo levels of motivation to use an onion to VPN my Rexall prepaid visa or whatever. Changing AIS is all I'm capable of.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
Sancho Banana posted:And they say artillery is obsolete smdh that we replaced sub-calibre trainers with simulators. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
The Voice of Labor posted:hey not ff, why does the projectile in the hornet nest videos move so slow? I think it's some sort of rocket or roman candle and the cannon is decorative. Compared to an artillery trainer that tries to replicate the ballistics of an artillery shell on a smaller scale.  That's still a big rear end 14mm projectile with a significant charge.  and goes significantly further and faster than whatever's in that video 
DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 20:10 on Feb 17, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
FirstnameLastname posted:i want the army toy It's very murky if you can actually buy these, but quite a few seem to have been dumped on the market when NATO militaries started using Meggit simulators. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Canada invade Buffalo and Albany so I can buy Ackteryx and Tim Horton easier? sure why not. Do they not have gucci outdoor gear and coffee in the states?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 22:54
|
|
|
Well, do you want dead Because I know which way I'm leaning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
If we're using Mussolini as a model of the far right, even birdbrained Italian fascist corporatism required companies to produce things for the state rather than just buying back their own stock.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
yellowcar posted:remember libs getting mad at trump for being a draft dodger lol Biden's exemption was way more suspicious iirc. Wasn't he like a double varsity athlete claiming sudden onset asthma that was never mentioned after the war? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9gH6iAldOg DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 02:06 on Feb 19, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
If they pull funding from barracks to fund Ukraine, truly the dumbest people are in charge.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 13:27
|
|
|
They're going to go back to Romany girls placing a hat on your head, or giving you a mug of beer with a shilling at the bottom.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 13:36
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:They need to just give me $30M and I would solve the recruitment crisis for the next decade. I'd just hire all the TikTok and Insta influencers and have them pump out a bunch of videos over the next few years. Hot girls saying they only date guys who've proven they're real men by doing national service and/or been in combat. Jacked dudes standing in front of Lambos talking about all the ways you can avoid paying taxes when you're in the service, and how to scam a bunch of bennies afterwards. You'd have GenZ clawing each other to be the first in line https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x308MIPPUyA
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
cock hero flux posted:no, our military prowess is based entirely on the overwhelming strength of our technology, which is why we are only giving ukraine all of our obsolete equipment and siphoning funding from the least important sector of our forces: enlisted soldiers. Skaffen-Amtiskaw posted:People see an F-35 and forget the dozens of F-15, 16 and 18s behind it propping up that force projection structure. People literally do believe this though. You will not believe how many people I run into, like loving academics and defence writers, who have no concept of teeth to tail, or even why line infantry is - you hate to admit it - far more useful than HSLD guys. Big Army is boring, and unglamorous, and they make you shave and wear the same clothes, but holy poo poo people! The guys cooking and doing laundry are objectively more useful at the strategic and operational level than the hundred or so door kickers in JTF. The knock on effects, like pretty much anyone who wants to progress career having to get parachute wings, a US Ranger tab, spend time in CSOR etc. is a huge drain on the army as well. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 20:47 on Feb 19, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:lol the western news has its hand fully down its own pants on this Although serving on the aircraft carrier has been a high-intensity assignment, 60 Minutes saw that morale has stayed high on board. According to Hill, that is by design. The philosophy aboard the Eisenhower is based on a quote from its namesake: "Morale is the single greatest factor in successful war." To help keep spirits high during a grueling deployment, the ship's Morale Welfare and Recreation Department hosts events to occupy sailors during their limited downtime, and the ship provides Wi-Fi access so sailors can stay in touch with family back home. In his communication as a leader, Hill said he uses "rapid, relentless, representative, positive communication," or R3P. In doing so, Hill said he makes a point to recognize individual sailors, telling them how important their job is and remind them how well they are doing. "What does morale get us? Morale gets us success in battle," Hill explained to correspondent Norah O'Donnell. "That's the ultimate goal. You know, it might allow you to do well on inspections, allow you to do well in your day-to-day activities. But ultimately, it's about combat and success … And it's working."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:racial superiority mythos but overlaying a superstructure of imperial decline rather than ascendancy you say Listen, Mack 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2024 22:01
|
|
|
bedpan posted:if they really cared about morale they'd bring back the rum ration So I read a book about this, and true story, the elimination of the rum ration in the 70's was supposed to be offset by greatly improved living conditions for sailors. The argument was that the job of operating increasingly sophisticated equipment required sobriety and sailors that were primarily technicians rather than the traditional grit and seamanship. Rum was eliminated in the RN, USN, RCN and RAN, but the new ships and bases coming online in the 1970's and planned for the 80's and beyond would respond to this by giving sailors a quality of life that matched their new status as high tech specialists. The RCN promised that naval ratings in the near future would have crew accommodations inline with Transport Canada standards for Canadian flagged merchant ships, like the Coast Guard has, so even junior enlisted sailors would basically have private cabins. The RN promised more or less the same thing. But neoliberalism happened at the same time, so... DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 02:03 on Feb 20, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:the end of uncontested flights by remote controlled flying assassination weapons can only be a good thing See, I thought about this. It's really hard to describe how much that feeling of worldwide impunity for the past 20 years has shaped US decision making and even their basic perception of the world. I don't know what happens if it ends. Do they go back to covert action? Cruise missile strikes? Manned airstrikes and reconnaissance flights? Commando raids? Do they use them as cautiously as in the past, or will their complacency with "Anytime. Anywhere. No consequences. No casualties." lead to them trying to use these methods as cavalierly as drones?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 02:18
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:I dare say modern navy sailors wish they had accomodations as luxurious as those on a working tugboat. lmao Jesus loving Christ. So I looked up Towboat Crew Accommodation Regulations, CRC, c 1498 because I knew it was in the Canada Shipping Act. But then I can’t find the text anywhere, because apparently it was repealed 2023-12-20. Wtf does that mean? I wondered. Well, per the Gazette issued that day Repeals: 536 The following Regulations are repealed: (a) the Crew Accommodation Regulations footnote 13; (b) the Ships’ Elevator Regulations footnote 14; (c) the Towboat Crew Accommodation Regulations footnote 15; and (d) the Steering Appliances and Equipment Regulations footnote 16. Huh? Oh, so they must be making life better under the Red Ensign, surely? “Canadian requirements related to the construction of, and equipment for, vessels 24 metres (m) or more in length were found to be out of date with the terminology and intent of the current Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (CSA 2001); did not align with Transport Canada’s (TC) approach for developing, implementing, and updating an effective regulatory regime; and were spread across multiple regulations and Transport Publications (TPs), making them difficult for marine stakeholders to find and interpret. Stakeholders seeking to build a new vessel or upgrade an existing vessel 24 m or more in length, had to consult multiple, disparate regulations which outlined all necessary requirements. These regulations had not been updated to reflect the latest international standards, which created an unnecessary burden on both stakeholders and the Government of Canada.” … Terrifying nonsequiter posted:The result of the investigation into the grounding and subsequent flooding of the passenger vessel Island Queen III in 2017 led the TSB to raise the concern that there were not enough child-sized or infant-sized lifejackets available for all passengers on the vessel. Although the vessel was able to return to dock without assistance and an evacuation of the vessel at sea was not required, this lack of appropriately sized lifejackets would have posed safety concerns should an evacuation have been necessary. As such, while the TSB did not issue a formal recommendation, it noted in its report that without TC requirements for the carriage of infant-sized lifejackets on board vessels, and requirements for vessel operators to ensure the number of child- and infant-sized lifejackets on board equals or exceeds the number of children and infants on board, there remains a risk that vessels may not have a sufficient number of suitably sized lifejackets in the event of an emergency. While a Ship Safety was issued, which recommended that vessel owners carry lifejackets of a proper size for all persons on board and reminded parents of infants of the lack of carriage requirements for infant lifejackets on Canadian vessels, this was not deemed sufficient to address the TSB’s safety concern. … The existing gaps between international and domestic requirements are a continued source of frustration for many in the marine industry. The Regulations will help TC address irritants for the marine industry and reduce regulatory barriers to innovation and investment, while also supporting novel approaches in the transportation sector. … The Regulations also allow stakeholders to employ new methods to construct and equip their vessels to match their individual operating circumstances, without the need to apply for an MTRB decision. The Regulations will, therefore, reduce burden on stakeholders and the Government of Canada. As such, the Regulations are expected to generate a cost savings of $1.99 million (present value in 2021 Canadian dollars, discounted to the year 2023 with a 7% discount rate) between 2023 and 2032, of which $58,240 would occur to vessel owners and $1.93 million to the Government of Canada. … The Regulations will impact small businesses, as some will incur additional costs associated with requirements to carry infant lifejackets and/or fit lifejackets with personal locator lights, while others will incur cost savings since they will no longer need to request exemptions from the MTRB.  … Existing requirements were not aligned with measures set by the IMO, most notably SOLAS, meaning that Canada was not meeting its international obligations. This resulted in vessels of similar size operating alongside one another in Canadian waters, while following different construction and equipment requirements depending on whether the vessels operated domestically or internationally. (Canada had higher standards than Liberia and Panama) … the Crew Accommodation Regulations outlined requirements (lighting, ventilation, etc.) for crew accommodation spaces on board vessels; the Towboat Crew Accommodation Regulations also outlined requirements for crew accommodation spaces, unique to vessels used for towing; and … stakeholders who sought to build a new vessel, or upgrade an existing vessel, of 24 m or more in length had to consult multiple, disparate regulations. In order to address gaps in the regulatory regime, including specific issues unique to the Canadian operating climate (e.g. operation in ice-covered waters, operation in the Great Lakes), requirements which need to be followed by certain vessels in certain situations (i.e. stability standards, electrical standards, standards for passenger vessels operating in ice) are set out in various technical publications and standards published by TC. (this was bad and inefficient because only Canada laid out burdensome regulations for operation in ice-covered waters) Outdated references, combined with requirements being spread across multiple different regulations, created a burden on stakeholders who expressed concerns that Canada’s approach to setting construction and equipment requirements for large vessels was out of step with approaches taken by similar maritime administrations around the world. … Stakeholders with novel vessel designs or designs incorporating the latest technological advancements available to the marine industry have frequently turned to developing methods for constructing and equipping their vessels which do not adhere to certain outdated requirements in regulations. Prior to the Regulations, each of these new approaches toward a vessel’s construction or equipment would require approval from the MTRB to deviate from the regulatory requirements that were in place. … Outdated requirements in regulations, which did not take into account technological advances or innovative designs, resulted in the MTRB being overloaded with requests from vessel operators across the country. This created a backlog of requests, which generated a large administrative burden on TC and has created frustration for stakeholders. … The primary objective of the Regulations is to produce one set of regulatory requirements that governs the construction and equipment of large vessels (24 m or more in length). Implementation of the Regulations is intended to ensure that Canadian requirements for the construction and equipment of new vessels are consistent with international requirements, modern standards, and industry best practices, while minimizing the impact on vessels currently operating under the Canadian flag both domestically and internationally.  … align domestic requirements with international requirements, where possible, to reduce the cost and burden on stakeholders who must currently refer to different sets of rules based on where their vessels operate; provide industry with increased flexibility to allow for innovation and to address known irritants within existing requirements;  … Initiatives under this component of the roadmap aim to support the need for more clarity and flexibility in the marine legislative and regulatory frameworks and harmonization with international standards, such as the IMO, to improve innovation and investment in Canada. They are also intended to address regulatory barriers to innovation and investment, while supporting innovation and novel approaches in the transportation sector.  tl;dr Two months before I wrote this post, Canada let the White Star Line write their regulations, repealing the accommodation standards, so they wouldn't be burdened from innovating or investing. So, the tugboat thing is out. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 03:39 on Feb 20, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 03:30
|
|
|
iirc there’s a wing of defence policy people in Australia obsessed with strategic strikes (against China) hence the F-111 and proposal to buy the B-21.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 04:29
|
|
|
As above, the ration started with beer or port iirc but rum kept better, particularly for long voyages and in tropical waters. For Britain specifically, rum was also consistently available where wine, port and sherry were interrupted by the state of Britain’s relationship with France, Spain, and Portugal. Mixed with fresh water and lemon, rum was considered healthy. It was not drunk straight until relatively late, so it’s not like sailors were drunk, I think the serving would be around 4-5% abv. Other countries did other things. Japan was so obsessed with their pickle ration that ships were designed with dedicated pickle lockers all the way until 1945. iirc it permanently changed Japanese cuisine. Curry was also introduced to Japanese culture through naval rations (don’t know the specifics). DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 06:08 on Feb 20, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 06:03
|
|
|
The Osprey has a really hosed up transmission system, doesn't it? Someone tried to explain it once and it just seemed worse than either a twin engine plane or twin rotor helicopter in every way, though I'm not very mechanically inclined.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:there has to be some other reason for the transmission, surely just giving each nacelle its own APU isn't the easy fix to this piece of poo poo Or glide, if I’m reading the bit about feathering correctly. Can it autorotate?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
so is there anything actually wrong with the CH 53 or CH 46 or 47? I understand the specific airframes and avionics in use were old, but couldn’t new, medium and heavy lift helicopters have been built ? Which specific problem did the Osprey solve, that a new helicopter, with new avionics couldn’t solve? when it comes to speed, range, whatever - I don’t understand how a new twin rotor helicopter like the Chinook, built from the ground up with new modern turbines, avionics, etc. but with the same general configuration, couldn’t do it better? This always comes up when I’m in meetings on the joint strike fighter, so CF-35 . It’s always emphasized that we have to procure it because the Hornets are at the end of their lifespan. They have limited avionics, and their range, speed, engines whatever is of like 1980s vintage. OK that’s fine, but why is the F 35 better than a new hornet built with today’s stuff? and the answer is always like, “well, no one’s making one we have to get the F 35 because our stuffs out of date and this is the new aircraft that’s on offer.” I see this all the time in these articles defending the V-22, and F-35 by people like that laser pig guy. “The existing systems are obsolete and need to be replaced.” OK but there’s no reason why they have to be replaced with this. and it seems to me, that the reason - and this goes for every weapon system - I’ve seen this on a million artillery weapon system projects, more than I can count, there’s always some pitch that there’s this radical evolution, right? Innovation. these grandiose promises are made at the beginning of a project that this radical innovation will have a substantial meaningful improvement over existing systems in service, and then what happens is R&D drags on for so long and the project is a loving disaster and the results are not actually anywhere near what was promised but it’s taken so long that the existing platforms are on their last legs and basically the contractors turn around and say “well yeah sure, this is actually not better than what was in service, and in many ways is worse and certainly not as good as was promised or a new order of iterative improvements - but, the clock is ticking on your stuff so what are you going to do?” I have seen this a million times. We are promised a super small arm. The radical next gen innovation can justify replacing the C7 and C8 in service. Because if at the beginning of the project, it was decided to just build new old rifles. That would be a very cheap easy program, but it wouldn’t be innovation and improvement so what happens is that DND get sold on something radically better that justifies the R&D cost. And then when it turns out to be a loving lemon, well, the existing stocks are badly exceeding service life so ah gently caress we have to do it. And I feel like I read somewhere that because small arms, Artillery systems, these are all basically perfected mature technologies, have been for a long time and there’s been so many produced, and production is easy cheap whatever, the only way for contractors to sell a new rifle when there’s … there’s a need for new rifles, but not a new rifle if you follow, to propose a new calibre or technology, so for example, caseless or telescoping cartridges, duplex rounds, darts, to claim that it is so much better than the existing inventory that you would have to pursue it. Importantly, this is never compatible with existing stocks because it’s a new calibre or new cartridge or whatever right it’s not an M-16 or C7. And if that initial pitch, why would it be? It’s a Bajillion times better because it’s newer and innovative. when that turns out to be bullshit, it still works out in their favour because even if you just realize this is no better than what we have, it’s not compatible with what you have so either way you end up stuck with it and I have to turn over your entire inventory. I have not seen any convincing information whatsoever that a 6.8 mm cartridge is meaningfully worth replacing the entire small arms inventory of the United States military, but it was promised to be that way until the only new rifles being produced are that calibre, so now the US Army is stuck because they can’t get new old rifles. They can only get the new rifles that aren’t better, but they have to replace the entire inventory because they’re not compatible and the existing rifles need to be replaced with wear. this is why I think BAE is not going to restart production of the M777. Everybody needs them now, because of donations and subsequent losses to Ukraine but all guns wear out anyway. I think they’re going to propose some sort of radical new gun that’s supposed to be much better, and I think ideally for them would not be compatible with the same 155 mm projectile. what will happen is it will turn out to not be better, but the promises of being better justify not building new old guns, and now that they were able to cause that delay and further stretch, the existing lifespan of the guns in service, well what can you do? You have to buy the new proprietary 130 mm gun or whatever exotic bizzare loving who knows to replace all your existing guns in service otherwise no artillery.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
If you want one, quick take away why Sig was smart, compared to heckler and koch and Fabrique national - the XM 8 and SCAR L promised to be better than the M4, and could be directly compared with the M4. that was bad move on their part because in trials yeah, they were found to be a bit better, but if they were gonna have one 556 rifle , why would they switch to a brand new one when they still had M4s? The ammunition prepared for the SCAR and XM8 was the same, so the army was not pot committed to them. They could keep using M4s. well, once they start shifting the logistics side over to the proprietary, new ammunition for the Sig, it doesn’t matter if it’s worse than or the same or marginally better, they’re stuck. No more M4s. I think HK got smart with the 416 because their market is European countries who have completely lost the ability to produce their own small arms. Is it better than FAMAS for the French army? Who cares?! France literally cannot build new, FAMAS rifles if they wanted to. They closed the loving factory. It might be the same, it could be worse, they still need the orders. If I understand correctly, the 416 is basically a loving M4 with a piston. And, like yes G36 was neat. FN 2000 was neat. Not neat enough to replace cold war stocks while they were still around. SCAR L and XM 8, same deal. Those rifles came 25 and 10 years too soon, respectively, because any of the four would need to be purchased now. That’s what’s so smart about the MIC strategy here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:Apparently the new army SIG pistol is not drop safe and has an issue with the frame exploding when using duty ammo lol There were Hi-Powers stamped 1945 that worked fantastic as long as the magazines had new springs. This sort of thing kills me. I don’t have high hopes that the new bespoke Tikka .308 (how this differs from 7.62 je ne sais pas) outlasts the Lee-Enfields just being retired this year either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 01:53
|
|
|
Remember 2022 when liberals said we could impose a no fly zone because Russia’s nukes wouldn’t leave their silos?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:I could be wrong but I feel like this sort of gently caress up should have been classified and all witnesses keeping quiet. I think their problem was they announced the test beforehand, and so couldn't not announce the result eventually
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:“The UK’s nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure and effective.” Just think of the past 5 years or so of British government messaging. “There will be plenty of food”, “prices will remain low” etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 09:58
|
|
|
500excf type r posted:Why do all the pilots and crew chiefs call it the fastest helicopter It is, iirc. It's way faster than the Griffon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 14:53
|
|
|
Retromancer posted:Just remembered that the space force is a thing lol. I almost guarantee it's because the space guys within the USAF wanted their own three star appointments and accompanying expanded staffs and HQs, because that's how an independent Marine Corps and Air Force happened. When you reach Colonel, there are only so many general officer positions to move into, and that's very disappointing for some people, particularly in a peacetime military. Creating a new branch is a fantastic opportunity to get a star, Pentagon residency or major command, a staff car, driver, ADC etc. and for a lot of people, that's what they want out of the height of their career. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 15:28 on Feb 21, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 15:26
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:i read it as the one that autorotated was blown up. seems like a genocide experiment similar to the ac-47 but for a helicopter There's a long article on it somewhere, I think one of the veteran association pages. The rationale - in theory - was that while waiting for dedicated Cobra gunships to come online, something with more firepower than the Huey gunships was required. Since the Chinook could carry the most weight, some genius figured that weight = weapons and ammo = firepower. The one that shot itself down with its cannons should have been a sign it was never really a sound concept, but you know, it was Vietnam and they were doing a bunch of dumb poo poo. The "Gunship" the USAF used over the Ho Chi Minh trail that consisted of a transport plane with guys manually dumping bomblets down a chute or whatever was equally ... creative.  Sending F-102s to Vietnam, I think was Pentagon politics because the interceptor track pilots wanted Air Medals and combat experience when competing for promotions against the fighter bomber track pilots. 
DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 15:35 on Feb 21, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 15:31
|
|
|
Aviation nerds seem to be really into "what if the F-106 was sent to Vietnam?" but... I am not an airplane guy, but it seems like it would not have been good?   From what I understand, the USAF interceptors used entirely different (worse, fewer) missiles than the fighter bombers, could not carry rockets, bombs or cannon, and had avionics that required them to be controlled by ground-controlled interception. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-VzmXPxQk4 The US apparently built one of these in Saigon or Thailand (both?) but... well, listen if the whole thing was so that guys who were qualified on the F-102 and F-106 could get promoted at the same rate as F-100 and F-4 pilots, mission successful I guess. Somehow, they still managed to lose 14 F-102s over Vietnam.  e: There were dedicated Huey gunships from fairly early on. UH-1Bs were converted to carry weapons from 1966. The UH-1C was designed to serve as a gunship from inception and 700ish were built iirc. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 15:48 on Feb 21, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
SixteenShells posted:that thing is downright adorable. it's like a pulp scifi cover art helicopter. i love it. How dare you call JSOC's Nightstalker Hooah Doorkicker helo "adorable"    Since it was the 30th anniversary of Mogadishu, there are a lot of interviews with the heroic crews who talk about randomly firing at every Somali person they saw 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2024 15:51
|
|