User Panel
|
M-72 LAW
Don't know if they have completely phased these out, but damn, why don't they give us any? |
|
It's completing operational testing now. I just saw one at the Modern Day Marine Expo last week at Quantico. It's cool and the aircrewmen I spoke with liked it and felt safe flying in it. |
|
|
The F16XL.
Supercruise, immense bombload for a fighter, incredible range. It could have been in service for almost 20 years now if the decision had been made to go with it. Although it didn't QUITE achieve its objective of true supercruise, it would definitely have done so with newer engine types that have been developed and deployed in the F16 since the XL prototypes first flew. The Thrust Vectoring F16, MATV/VISTA project. F-16 VISTA / MATV / NF-16D Variable-stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft, Multi Axis Thrust Vectoring This relatively inexpensive upgrade (about 1 million per plane, in the 80s) would have given the F16 fleet the then-unprecedented ability of thrust vectoring flight.
Source: www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article19.html If we'd bought these programs for the fleet, we'd be DECADES ahead of any possible competition. At a time when the Russians were just getting into gear with their SU-27, which is arguably a match for the F16, we could have had this sweet little beast up and running which would have literally flown circles around it. Blame our politicians, and some shortsighted Pentagon types, as usual. CJ |
|
|
The sabre.....can't help it, my Dad was in the horse cav right before WWII. Oh, and the F-86 Sabrejet...cheap to build. Flood the skies with napalm carrying, .50 toting Sabres.
I know, I live in the past. |
|
My XO in ROTC helped design that thing. He figured it would be axed. +1 on Crusader. That was one seriously awesome weapon system. |
|
|
Yes, they managed to get ahold of 4 of the 6 prototypes- and NO the Army does NOT have enough of a descretionary budget to buy the 265 examples the Army needed for the 82nd, 101st and 2nd ACR The Ground Troop of the 82nds Cav Squadron (1-17th?) has them replacing one TOW Humvee plt, and they keep them with A/1-511PIR's section of 6 LOSAT Humvees as a Emergency Anti-Armor task force. |
|
|
Is any of this expensive crap really going to help fight terrorists?
|
|
|
|
|
FU |
||
|
REPLACED with the AT-4 84mm recoilless rifle, which actually stands a chance of hurting a modern tank, assuming the unlikely occurrance that the tankers don't see you first... |
|
|
|
Nice suicide weapon... While it had a place of sorts on the immagined WWIII nuclear battlefield, to slow a hypothetical Russian armored onslaught, there is no concievable reason for a weapon that stands a good chance of (slowly) killing it's crew if ever actually fired... And tactical nuclear weapons are useless in the post-Soviet world anyway... Well, with the exception of the anti-WMD penetrator designs (which are designed to have zero fallout due to how deep the things are supposed to dive before they go 'boom')... |
|
|
That's why for penetration the B1 and the B2 would be used. The B52 is perfect as a standoff cruise missle platform. The right tool for the job. |
|
|
Aw shucks.... |
|
|
The B-2 is a specialized airplane, it sacrifices bombload for stealth. The B-1B is our heaviest lifting bomber, and is all-around better at every role BESIDES penetration than either of the other 2.... It can out-carpet-bomb the '52, it flies cheaper & faster than the B-2, and it actually has a prayer against a 'real live' air defense system, in the event we have to fight, say, China... Yes, it costs more than the 52... New technology allways does... Also, the cost of ownership for the 52s will go up steadily due to their age... In the same way that the F-15 is due for a replacement (Raptor), the '52 is due for one as well... Remember: there are other threats than terrorists out there, and we may actually have to fight a country some day that won't roll over & play dead for the USAF.... We aren't just talking newer here: we're talking faster, more survivable, more precise (since it doesn't have to rely on flying way-the-hell-high to stay alive), and heavier payload... |
|
|
The F-22 was the all-around better aircraft... 'looking badass' was not the sole factor... As for 'Supercruise', both aircraft had it, as it was a requirement of the ATF specification. Specifically, the '22 had better stealth abilities... The point of 'Supercruise' is not to be the fastest thing out there, it's to be able to fly faster, longer... Normal fighters can only sustain supersonic speed for a few minutes (very few) without burning up all their fuel, as they need afterburners to do it. The ATF was required to be able to go supersonic under 'military' or non-afterburning power-levels, thus allowing higher speed than the competition without using up an entire oilfield in the process... |
|
|
Still listed in the field manuals for the US Army atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/297097-1/fm/3-23.25/toc.htm The USMC doesn't issue them anymore per STLRN, but there is every evidence that the US Army occasionally still does. Canada and the IDF use them a LOT but only against buildings. They are popular because of their light weight and-as long as you don't ask them to take on a modern tank or IFV- they pack a very mean punch. The M-72 will probably outlast the AT-4 in US Army service. The AT-4 has been something of a White Elephant, its roughly 100mm paper advantage in penetrating RHA has not translated into any increased real world effectiveness against MBTs or IFVs. The Army is talking about buying the M3 Carl Gustav to replace the AT-4 and the limited run of M141 Anti-bunker Weapons for anti-fortification work. The Marines already have the Mk153/B-300 Rocket Launcher for that role, and are looking to ditch the AT-4 for the Rafael Spike SR (which was shot in trials at China Lake this past spring) the Spike ER leaped over the Lockheed Martin Predator dumb rocket as the AT-4 replacement. atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/297097-1/fm/3-23.25/ch6.htm#tab6-2 The M72 series is rated at being better at everything except penetrating armor plate, and that slight advantage for the AT-4 is negated by the almost universal use of ERA and spaced armor on even light armored vheicles which will defeat both rounds, since neither has a tandem warhead. |
||
|
The Montana class Battleships. Think of a longer and bigger Iowa class with 4 16" triple turrets.
|
|
I was under the impression that the LAW was gone... SPIKE would be a great addition: a man-portable GUIDED ATGM... 'course, if we ever face an enemy with decent thermal optics on their tanks, see the second part of my first post: IF they don't see you first... After all, the tank has a tad bit of a range advantage, so if they see your heat signature you might as well be that guy who sat in the middle of the street lining up his RPG shot... |
|||
|
+1 I would have like to have seen the HK G11 go farther than what it did. |
|
|
|
The middle of the street is not THAT big a problem since tanks have trouble sometimes turning their turrets in cities-why you see M1 turret crews so often out of their hatches using M4's, its in the middle of the OPEN FIELD that is a problem. This is why modern war is either a dual between tanks or takes place in cities. And if you have SPIKE SR you wont be standing in the street- it is cold launch and needs only 1m space behind it, just like its big brothers and Javelin. So it can be fired from inside a building or bunker- though if you have to use top attack you need to make sure you can stick the muzzle out the window or apeture so it can get to clear sky. The M72 is not a dedicated AT weapon anymore but rather treated like a very long range hand grenade. Even though it is one shot, it is a all in one system that weighs only as much as ONE ROUND of M3 Carl Gustave or Mk 153 ammo and two can be carried in place of a AT-4 with two pounds net in the bag. |
||||
|
The MK 71 Major caliber Light Weight Gun. A cruiser sized 8 inch gun that could fire 2 rounds a minute with the range of an Iowa class 16" gun, and be mounted on a Spruance class destroyer.
|
|
|
|
The M-72 may still show up in Army refrences, but I have heard of no examples of the being issued in theater except for possibly SF.
|
|
We still have FLASH. People are just affraid to use it since the aluminum hydride that makes up the warhead ignites in contact with AIR and the body of the round is thin aluminum. It gets hit by even a small fragment the operator gets instantly cremated. |
|
|
Or in mountains, or swamps, or jungles, or...... |
|
|
The airborne only needs to burn enoug hdiscretionary budget to prove that hte m8 is worthwhile, I give it small odds of being adopted via such means (probably 20-80, but far better then it had before)
|
|
Nope, that is rare. There are only so many Afganistans out there. Only so many triple canopy rainforests like Cambodia. But cities are EVERYWHERE. And they are also the only things worth controlling. |
||
|
... You knuckleheads, the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program cancellation this year was the best thing to happen in the Army in quite a while. I’m too tired now to explain in detail why, but you gotta trust me on this one.
… Ask Ross, ArmdLbrl or DrMark if you don’t believe me |
|
This is another "could have been"
www.mechaps.com/mecha_images/121.jpg The General Motors "Hardyman" prototype of 1965. Abandoned because it had a habit of injuring its operator, which closed minded execs at GM used as proof it could "never work" instead of patiently sniffing out the problem. If they had stayed with it though, they could of had a working example by 1980, I base this on the amount of time Honda took developing the series of robots that became ASIMO who appeared in 2001 15 years after the first Honda Humanoid Robot was started in 1986. If GM had stayed with it the public would hae some interesting ATVs by today- and the Army would have real powered armors. |
|
Why me? I am actually kind of ambivilant about that cancellation. We didn't need a pure scout helicopter, but we DID need a smaller gunship for the light forces to replace the Kiowa Warrior. The Comanche had been specially designed to be shipped and be ready to fly in 15 minutes from landing. As for a pure scout Boeing's QH-6 Cayuse (AKA "Little Bird") is better. Old OH/AH-6's reconstructed as drones. The AH-64D is a great gunship that will get better when the JCM/Hellifre III comes out, but its just difficult to ship, you cant just shovel it out the back of a C-17, on some dirt strip since you have to remove too many pieces to get it to fit. |
|
|
... allrighty then: … Ask Ross |
||
|
No prob man....great minds think alike. |
||
|
A possibly usefull weapon for a future conflict with China, as they are the only force with a large enough army to make the use of such weapons worthwile (Neutron bombs were designed for tactical use vs an invading Soviet army, to reduce their numbers a bit prior to conventional contact)... But only if the Chinese never increase the size of their ICBM fleet... There is a reason why nuclear weapons are built with the intent that they will never be used... |
|
|
|
|
I've heard that having gonorrhea vaguely resembles that... CJ |
|
|
Man, those EFOG-M's look sweet. I've got a video here showing a test of one of these things in which it was fired up from behind a Huey helicopter and guiding to the target. It was a most impressive kill, right through the blades. I real target would likely never know what had hit them. A most bad-ass weapon.
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.