Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/17/2004 7:24:06 PM EST
Even with the costs, I really liked the new Crusader artillery system. I would have loved to seen what it could have done, even though the M109A6 is a fine SP gun.

The Commanche helicopter was also cool. But I suppose it was best suited to a major war type situation and is really not much more effective than the Kiowa Warrior in low intensity conflict like we usually face these days.

The YF-23, although never axed (because it was never really adopted) because it is simply a marvelous design and has lots of promise, even if the F-22 is superior in air-to-air roles. The F-23 would make one helluva strike fighter.

And although not really recent, the XB-70 Valkyrie was one of the most awesome machines I ever seen period. Outside being nuclear, I have no idea what it could accomplish today had it gone into production and was still serving. But I'm sure it would have been able to carry quite a few precision guided munitions higher and faster than anything we have in the inventory today.

So, what other cool stuff was there that never entered service that had tons of upside?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:25:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 7:25:21 PM EST by Zaphod]
Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:26:35 PM EST
+1 Crusader
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:26:48 PM EST
SR-71. 'Nuf said.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:27:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 7:29:24 PM EST by The_Groovinator]
"And although not really recent, the XB-70 Valkyrie was one of the most awesome machines I ever seen period. "

That's the first one I thought of when I read the thread title. I've always loved the look of Valkyrie.

www2.interceptor.com/~thumper/xb2/in-flight.jpg

(I deleted the image as I do not know how to size it smaller)
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:29:00 PM EST
B-52D with "Big Belly" mod.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:34:48 PM EST
Crusader +1

/Former Marine Arty Sgt - 0844 FDC dood
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:38:04 PM EST
Comanche, would have been an awsome helo.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:40:15 PM EST
The Grizzly.

I watched the prototype unloaded and driven to its display area at the museum here at FLW last week. sad.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:41:07 PM EST
... can't post publically
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:42:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By aLongshot:
Comanche, would have been an awsome helo.




+1
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:50:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By MiG-21:
B-52D with "Big Belly" mod.



I hear ya. Though technically not what I meant (by axed I meant stuff in development that was never adopted), the B-52D could still have a place in today's air force. I wish we would have never retired the G models in the early 90's for sure. And I wish we still had the D's that were retired in 1983 also.

Even in a day and age where precision munitions are the rage, there's still lots of situations where good ol' fashioned carpet bombing can still have a devastating and useful effect. See Fallujah for the perfect example of a target it should be used against. Of course I am sure that's not a politically correct statement in today's world, but I feel that's the only way to pacify that friggin town. Destroy it.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:21:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
See Fallujah for the perfect example of a target it should be used against. Of course I am sure that's not a politically correct statement in today's world, but I feel that's the only way to pacify that friggin town. Destroy it.

Saw a blurb today that we just put another big strike on Zarqawi et al's heads in Fallujah, overnight local (<12hrs ago). Haven't seen any BDA yet.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:28:49 PM EST
The Crusader, because it probably has the most relevance to whatever the next major conflict will be.

Overall, though, I just wish we hadn't decommissioned our whole freaking cruiser fleet (thanks Clinton)
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:30:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?



+1
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:43:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 8:44:39 PM EST by GrumpyM4]
The Sgt. York ADA system!!......

Heard a story once from an Army dude who worked at a test area in Nevada where they supposedly did a nice little meet & greet with some senator/congress critter types who wanted to see what the Cgt. York could do.

They had a remote controlled Helo(fullsized) ready to go and they set the Sgt. York up to do its thing. Well, it seems that they had one of them special honey buckets for the congress critters that came with a battery and a little electric fan in it to keep them special politicos cool when they were pinching off their daily loaf. When the test went down and the crew turned on the Yorks Tracking radar, it homed in on this tiny little honeybucket fan and let a burst of 40mm HE rounds into the shitter instead of the target drone.

Last time I saw a Sgt. York was at the Fallon NAS airshow back in '90 when I was in highschool. It was one of the last ones that hadn't been scrapped and was apparently slated to go out to the strike university practice range to be "de-milled".

Chris
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:50:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 8:51:08 PM EST by Winston_Wolf]

Originally Posted By GrumpyM4:
The Sgt. York ADA system!!......

Chris



... Yup, the Sgt. York was a huge boondoggle bungled by General Dynamics. Concept was revolutionary but the engineering was in the shitter
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:52:44 PM EST
commanche. would be really nice in korea.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:54:34 PM EST
M8 "Buford" Armored Gun System.
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

How handy would something like THIS be, right now.

"The AGS is not a tank -- it may look like a tank, but it's not a tank. It's a thin-skinned vehicle with a gun on it. The vehicle was designed to support the infantry from a position where it can fire and be behind dirt with an elevated gun and to fight in areas where its not going to run into tanks. It has more than one role, and it just doesn't kill tanks. It kills other kinds of targets. It has to be able to bust bunkers, shoot into bunkers, go into urban areas and shoot into windows, and have a round that will spray shrapnel -- that will "take out" people who are firing hand-held weapons or machine guns. US forces using enhanced direct-fire weapons such as the Armored Gun System would fare better than forces equipped with current firepower. "

Air-droppable, and basically RPG-proof with level protection added.

As a former tanker, I always thought the Abrams' inability to fire beehive/anti-personnel rounds was a mistake.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 8:59:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 9:25:58 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By GunSlingAR:
M8 "Buford" Armored Gun System.
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

How handy would something like THIS be, right now.

"The AGS is not a tank -- it may look like a tank, but it's not a tank. It's a thin-skinned vehicle with a gun on it. The vehicle was designed to support the infantry from a position where it can fire and be behind dirt with an elevated gun and to fight in areas where its not going to run into tanks. It has more than one role, and it just doesn't kill tanks. It kills other kinds of targets. It has to be able to bust bunkers, shoot into bunkers, go into urban areas and shoot into windows, and have a round that will spray shrapnel -- that will "take out" people who are firing hand-held weapons or machine guns. US forces using enhanced direct-fire weapons such as the Armored Gun System would fare better than forces equipped with current firepower. "

Air-droppable, and basically RPG-proof with level protection added.

As a former tanker, I always thought the Abrams' inability to fire beehive/anti-personnel rounds was a mistake.



1) +1 on the M8, although I allways saw it as a 'light tank' to give Airborne units some firepower beyond AT-4s, Javlins, and whatever the Air Force & Navy can manage to drop... Fully up-armored, it LOOKS like a small tank too...

The fact is, without a M-8 type vehicle, airborne units are SOL for heavier firepower apart from towed arty, and whatever you can tack on top of a HMMWV or dune buggy... Even the stryker-MGS isn't air-droppable (recoil rollver issues aside)... So if you need that sort of firepower to take the airfield that is needed to bring it in, bit of a problem there...

The only deficiency is that 'Level 3' max armor can't stand up to APC cannon fire, so I doubt it would survive an antiarmor RPG. A 'Level 4' bolt-on and/or reactive armor system that can take up to a single 105mm hit (concept: any armored vehicle should be theoretically able to survive at a minimum, 1 hit from it's own main armament)...

2) As of recently, the Abrams *CAN* fire a specially designed anti-personell round (aside frome HE). It has been used in Iraq, and is basically a 120MM shotshell (think grapeshot/cannister from the old muzzle-loading days) loaded with tungsten ball-shot.... Much more 'foolproof' than the old fused-beehive munition

Now, for my personal beef:

B-1B 'Lancer'

There is no excuse (besides $$$) for a single B-52 still being operational. Period. They are obselete, and a serious threat to their aircrew if we ever end up fighting an enemy with operational air defenses (China, North Korea, etc.)...

The B-1B carries more bombs, flies faster, and can actually survive in a threat environment due to better speed & maneuverability...

The 52s should be replaced with B-1s, every last one of them... They might make good water-bombers, though... I hear CA needs a few of those...
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:10:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 9:18:21 PM EST by GunSlingAR]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

2) As of recently, the Abrams *CAN* fire a specially designed anti-personell round (aside frome HE). It has been used in Iraq, and is basically a 120MM shotshell (think grapeshot/cannister from the old muzzle-loading days) loaded with tungsten ball-shot.... Much more 'foolproof' than the old fused-beehive munition




Now THAT is some "more thrust per squeeze" I can get into! My former crewmates and I were always talking about how we wished for something like that, especially considering the tasks the military seems to be taking on are more and more urban. When I deployed to Bosnia, the tanks carried 30 HEATs and 10 APFSDS (sabot) anti-tank rounds. There was much discussion along the "WTF" lines about the sabots.....

I wonder how tungsten shot penetrates. I bet you could level small buildings with that!
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:13:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 9:18:48 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By MiG-21:
B-52D with "Big Belly" mod.



I hear ya. Though technically not what I meant (by axed I meant stuff in development that was never adopted), the B-52D could still have a place in today's air force. I wish we would have never retired the G models in the early 90's for sure. And I wish we still had the D's that were retired in 1983 also.

Even in a day and age where precision munitions are the rage, there's still lots of situations where good ol' fashioned carpet bombing can still have a devastating and useful effect. See Fallujah for the perfect example of a target it should be used against. Of course I am sure that's not a politically correct statement in today's world, but I feel that's the only way to pacify that friggin town. Destroy it.



B-52 is a manned target drone...

Too slow, poor maneuverability, too easy to see on radar....

'Big Belly' or not... The B-1 is still a better aircraft...

And if you 'pacify' Fallujah by destroying it, you will lose the entire country instantly. The 'Israeli' method is best: just go back in every so often, kick their asses with ground troops, and pull back out as a sign of good will... Eventually they will get the message or our guys will take the whole town instead of 2/3 of it...
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:14:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 8:48:58 AM EST by scrum]
deleted
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:24:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By GunSlingAR:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

2) As of recently, the Abrams *CAN* fire a specially designed anti-personell round (aside frome HE). It has been used in Iraq, and is basically a 120MM shotshell (think grapeshot/cannister from the old muzzle-loading days) loaded with tungsten ball-shot.... Much more 'foolproof' than the old fused-beehive munition




Now THAT is some "more thrust per squeeze" I can get into! My former crewmates and I were always talking about how we wished for something like that, especially considering the tasks the military seems to be taking on are more and more urban. When I deployed to Bosnia, the tanks carried 30 HEATs and 10 APFSDS (sabot) anti-tank rounds. There was much discussion along the "WTF" lines about the sabots.....

I wonder how tungsten shot penetrates. I bet you could level small buildings with that!



Probably... Certainly would shred light vehicles (like a suspected suicide-bomber's car) better than APFDS (no armor -> neat little hole), and without the collateral damage of HE...

As for use against troops, well, let's just say grapeshot has a long history in that regard... Some old technologies just plain work...

And the Abrams main-gun is a smoothbore design, so it's quite well suited towards being used as a 'BFSG' (Big F'n Shot Gun).

So, what's the gauge of a 120mm cannon?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:27:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 9:27:51 PM EST by whofan]
Comanche. Of course I am biased. Used to fly helicopters for the Army.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:34:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
So, what's the gauge of a 120mm cannon?



Gee, do gauge numbers GO into the negatives?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 9:37:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By GunSlingAR:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

2) As of recently, the Abrams *CAN* fire a specially designed anti-personell round (aside frome HE). It has been used in Iraq, and is basically a 120MM shotshell (think grapeshot/cannister from the old muzzle-loading days) loaded with tungsten ball-shot.... Much more 'foolproof' than the old fused-beehive munition




Now THAT is some "more thrust per squeeze" I can get into! My former crewmates and I were always talking about how we wished for something like that, especially considering the tasks the military seems to be taking on are more and more urban. When I deployed to Bosnia, the tanks carried 30 HEATs and 10 APFSDS (sabot) anti-tank rounds. There was much discussion along the "WTF" lines about the sabots.....

I wonder how tungsten shot penetrates. I bet you could level small buildings with that!



Probably... Certainly would shred light vehicles (like a suspected suicide-bomber's car) better than APFDS (no armor -> neat little hole), and without the collateral damage of HE...

As for use against troops, well, let's just say grapeshot has a long history in that regard... Some old technologies just plain work...

And the Abrams main-gun is a smoothbore design, so it's quite well suited towards being used as a 'BFSG' (Big F'n Shot Gun).

So, what's the gauge of a 120mm cannon?



Let's see...how much does a 120 mm in diameter solid lead roundball weigh?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 10:22:50 PM EST
Commanche
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 10:38:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 10:39:52 PM EST by MoparMike]
The Iowa Class Battleships. Nothing says "PWN3D" like a full broadside.





*moparmike adds to his "If I were Emporor of Earth for a day" list*
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 10:47:16 PM EST
Dave,

I disagree about the B-52. You gotta look at cost issues. If we replaced the remaining 94 B-52H's in inventory with B-1B's, can you imagine what that would cost? The B-52 has long ago been paid for and is already in inventory. As has been proven many times, it is very easy to upgrade and can still perform it's mission today. And with advances in weaponry, the B-52 no longer has to penetrate enemy air defenses. It has cruise missiles and other standoff weapons that can allow it to hit hard without exposing itself to enemy air defenses. Then once the enemy air defenses have been neutralized, the B-52 can go in close and carpet bomb or do as it pleases.

I would agree that the B-1B would be better suited to low-level deep penetration strikes. But we are no longer talking about Cold War battles with the Soviets. Most of the shithole nations we deal with these days don't even have an air force. And if they do it's usually history after the first night of battle. So to say the B-52 is obsolete is untrue. It did it's mission well in GW 1, Afghanistan and again in Iraq. It also served well in the in-between strikes in the 90's. So if the B-1 makes the B-52 obsolete, the B-2 makesz the B-1 obsolete. But the B-2 is so expensive we can only build a few of them. The B-52 does it's mission well enough and is versatile enough that it doesn't require the USAF to invest in more B-1's.

BTW, I still bet ya the B-52 is in service long after the B-1's are getting a tan in the Boneyard!
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 10:50:47 PM EST
It is said that when the last B-2 retires, its crew will be picked up by a B-52.

I think that so many people in the Armed Forces like the Stratofortress that if it were suddenly retired, they would be up in arms. Pardon the pun...
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 10:57:29 PM EST
Considering the B-52 started protecting America about the same time the 1957 Chevy started cruising the streets, I would say it has some longevity! But today's B-52 is not your father's B-52. Hehe.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 11:00:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 11:04:37 PM EST by Not_A_Llama]

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
So, what's the gauge of a 120mm cannon?



120mm lead ball = 60 mm radius
.06 m radius
Volume = 4/3*pi*r^3
=0.000905 m^3

Density of lead: 11340 kg/m^3
(11340 kg/m^3)*(0.000905 m^3) = 10.26 kg

=22.62 lbs


Gauge is # of bore-diameter balls it takes to equal a pound

1/22.62 = 0.044 gauge
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:08:28 AM EST
+1 for the crusader.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:11:37 AM EST
Comanche
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 12:43:24 AM EST
Bring back Napalm… very little has 'shock and Awe' like a napalm strike…






You smell that? Do you smell that? Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for twelve hours. When it was all over I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...

This was voted the best movie speechever in a Poll here in Britain.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3362603.stm#quote

ANdy
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 2:23:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Not_A_Llama:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
So, what's the gauge of a 120mm cannon?



120mm lead ball = 60 mm radius
.06 m radius
Volume = 4/3*pi*r^3
=0.000905 m^3

Density of lead: 11340 kg/m^3
(11340 kg/m^3)*(0.000905 m^3) = 10.26 kg

=22.62 lbs


Gauge is # of bore-diameter balls it takes to equal a pound

1/22.62 = 0.044 gauge




(tim allen) More Power ! Grunt,Grunt,Grunt....
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:28:21 AM EST
I would say the Crusader. Would be quite useful in Korea or Iran.

Also, the M8 is a good choice, because without it our Airborne Troops are without the heavy firepower they need. The M-551 Sheridan light tank, even with all of its flaws, was an extremely useful piece of equipment in places like Panama.

I would also like to see the YF-23 become the F/A-23 in the near future. Badass kooking air craft, and I really don't know why the F22 was given preferance. IIRC the YF-23 was the faster of the two, and thats even with the vaunted "super cruise" of the F22. I think it would make a great strike fighter.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 3:52:29 AM EST
M-8
B-1
A-10

Not continuing development of the F-14, like they did with the F-18.
Sometimes fast is what works best. (I know the F-14 has "issues", but some seem directly related to no further development)
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:01:20 AM EST
+1 Crusader.

Arty: When you really need to sling alot of ordinance over along period of time for less than a million bucks a pop.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 4:41:29 AM EST
I thought one of the alternatives offered for the Sgt York was cool. M48 chasis, with a turret that housed the GAU-8A 30mm. Picture an armored Phalanx CWIS with tank mobility. They never built one, but I got to see a model of one they built for the idea. It was WAY cool.

F-20 Tigershark would have been cool as a giveaway item to allies.

A-10B two-seater, fully night capable attack aircraft (cancelled due to funds and lack fo supprot from the "fighter mafia")

XM-70 105mm howitzer (I just wish they got it to work): Developed by Pacific Car and Foundry, it was basically a select fire 105 with a 32 rd mag. Max ROF was 60rds a minute on full auto. WHOA!

XM-19 SPIW: Flechette rifle, just because it would be so cool.

Riflman's Assault Weapon (RAW) by Brunswick: Picture a grapefruit sized grenade you shoot off the end of your M16 and could go up to 1000meters.

I'd probably come up with alot more if I thought about it.

Ross
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:20:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By GrumpyM4:
The Sgt. York ADA system!!......

Heard a story once from an Army dude who worked at a test area in Nevada where they supposedly did a nice little meet & greet with some senator/congress critter types who wanted to see what the Cgt. York could do.

They had a remote controlled Helo(fullsized) ready to go and they set the Sgt. York up to do its thing. Well, it seems that they had one of them special honey buckets for the congress critters that came with a battery and a little electric fan in it to keep them special politicos cool when they were pinching off their daily loaf. When the test went down and the crew turned on the Yorks Tracking radar, it homed in on this tiny little honeybucket fan and let a burst of 40mm HE rounds into the shitter instead of the target drone.

Last time I saw a Sgt. York was at the Fallon NAS airshow back in '90 when I was in highschool. It was one of the last ones that hadn't been scrapped and was apparently slated to go out to the strike university practice range to be "de-milled".

Chris



WADR, the Sgt. York Divisional Air Defense System or DIVADS was a complete turkey. In 1978, I was working at General Dynamics as a young test engineer on one of the two prototypes then competing for the Army contract. Our competition was Ford Aeroneutronic in Detroit.

The AA tank was designed to meet an Army requirement to provide organic AA capability to armored columns. Other nations had had similar systems for years. One good example was the Soviet ZSU-23 "Shilka" 4-barrel, 23mm radar-controlled gun system. DIVADS was primarily designed to kill helos and fixed wing attack aircraft. It also had to be able to engage light armored vehicles such as the Soviet BTR-76 and BMPs.

The vehicle was a GFE M-60A3 tank with an APU added. Each contractor team received two tank hulls. GS and Ford then added their own turret designs, including the radars, fire control computers, guns etc.

The Ford tank used a pair of 40mm Bofors guns that fired 480rpm (240x2) each. The guns worked well, but their turret couldn't carry as much ammo and required more frequent reloading. Reloading the 40mm ammo was a chore. The Ford turret was also larger and heavier which made the vehicle much slower than the GD tank. The GD tank used a pair of 35mm Oerlikon KDA guns firing at a rate of 1100 rpm (550x2) IIRC. Ballistically, they were about equal to the Bofors guns. We carried more ammo and the ammo was easier for the crews to handle. We did have a feed system failure but were able to fix it with a minor redesign, working with the Swiss guys from Oerlikon.

The Ford tank used a modified F-16 radar system with a rotating search antenna. This design meant that their antennae stuck up outside of the camouflage netting. The OPFOR helo drivers said they looked for that when they attacked the convoy during OPEVAL. They realized if they took out the AA tank, then the rest of the armor was easy meat. The GD tank used a slightly modified MK-15 Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS) then in full rate production for the Navy, in a fully enclosed radome. This meant that our radar could operate UNDER the camouflage netting. The helo drivers could not see us. The first indication they had that we were there was when we started "shooting" at them.

GD were going to build our vehicle at our new plant in Rancho Cucamonga, CA. GD already had a design and production plant there and in Pomona, just down the road a bit, where we built the Rolling Airframe Missile, CIWS and STANDARD Missile.

Ford proposed refurbishing and re-opening a closed auto assembly line in Detroit. REMEMBER THAT...and the time (1979). The American auto industry was making complete crap then and having their asses handed to them by the Japanese and Germans.

During the testing period, Army troops operated the tanks and did the maintenance. Both systems had some teething problems but progressed well enough to enter the final OPEVAL. During OPEVAL, the GD tank suffered a left gun casualty in one test but successfully killed the tethered helo with the single firing cannon. The Ford vehicle had a few unsuccessful engagements due to shot dispersal. Basically, their MOA sucked! They claimed however that their VT fused ammo would make up for the lack of hit-to-kill accuracy. Our ammo didn't use VT fuses...but just before source selection, Oerlikon did begin making some. We were unable to use it in our bit however. Both tanks successfully engaged ground targets. The Ford tank also successfully engaged an outbuilding IIRC. the reasons stated above. The radar locked up on the Doppler radar return from the fan blades of the outhouse. I seem to remember it failed to take out the helo target but blasted the shit out of the outhouse!

When testing was completed, both teams took their respective tanks back home to the factories. Our (GD) Army guys were absolutely confident that they had shot the pants off of the Army Ford crews in all stages and clearly won the mobility tests. They stated that on the cross country runs, the heavier Ford tanks were unable to stay up with the M1 Abrams and the Bradleys...too slow. I must note...the Army troops had NO dog in the fight...they wanted the best AA tank. I don't think "Stockholm Syndrome" had anything to do with their biases.

So...which tank did Jimmy Carter's Defense Secretary award the contract to?

Yup---Ford! The Army guys and all of us at GD were stunned to hear the news. The Army guys were visibly pissed off. Years later we learned that politics had played a huge role in the selection process. Ford was in deep financial trouble then. Detroit (We all know about Detroit...who lives there and how they vote...right?) NEEDED that work. GD was actually doing pretty well. We only had to lay off a few folks....but the long term effects were pretty bad though.

Anyway...the award was worth ...$6.0 billion IIRC. Ford built their factory, tooled up and went into full rate production...just about the time that Reagan took over in early 1981. Shortly thereafter, his SECDEF, Cap Weinberger, a VERY smart man, realized that the DIVADS program was a "jobs" program and that it failed to meet it's original warfighting requirements. He killed it quickly.

One last thing. Right before the selection board met, GD modified the tank turret to include six Stinger missiles in the top of the turret just over the guns. They were integrated into the track-while-scan radar computer system, so the crew could fire and forget missiles at helos or jets, then continue engagements on other targets at the same time with the guns. This mod increased our firepower by double over the Ford tank. The Army guys loved it. We lost anyway.

Go figure...
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:24:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/18/2004 7:24:36 AM EST by FieroLoki]
Atomic Annie please....

http://www.olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_atomic.php3

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:29:14 AM EST
The REAL XM-8

Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:32:33 AM EST
Crusader +1
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:33:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By GunSlingAR:
M8 "Buford" Armored Gun System.
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

How handy would something like THIS be, right now.

"The AGS is not a tank -- it may look like a tank, but it's not a tank. It's a thin-skinned vehicle with a gun on it. The vehicle was designed to support the infantry from a position where it can fire and be behind dirt with an elevated gun and to fight in areas where its not going to run into tanks. It has more than one role, and it just doesn't kill tanks. It kills other kinds of targets. It has to be able to bust bunkers, shoot into bunkers, go into urban areas and shoot into windows, and have a round that will spray shrapnel -- that will "take out" people who are firing hand-held weapons or machine guns. US forces using enhanced direct-fire weapons such as the Armored Gun System would fare better than forces equipped with current firepower. "

Air-droppable, and basically RPG-proof with level protection added.

As a former tanker, I always thought the Abrams' inability to fire beehive/anti-personnel rounds was a mistake.



+1
The M8 AGS would fill a real gap. Too bad Clinton axed it.

Another less glamorous thing is a replacement for the KC135. The existing tanker fleet is getting very long in the tooth.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:42:16 AM EST
The abrams buckshot round is made up of around 1400 .40 cal tungsten rounds. Tungsten has an elastic property that makes it very deadly at speed. Pretty much any projectile made of tungsten is going to be AP.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:49:11 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:51:00 AM EST
Actually the 82nd did an endrun around procurement and acquired the M8 prototypes and all spare parts.

They are currently in service, and I believe have been used in Afghanistan.

Last I heard the airborne is going to pay for spares out of thier operational budget and not let the procurement people say a damn thing about it. The damn thing could see adoption without congress mucking with it at all, the Army has enough of a discretionary budget that they could pull that off.
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:51:10 AM EST
The A-12 Navy strike jet. Cheney killed it when he was secdef due to huge cost overruns, but cripes! Does no one else see the need for a carrier launched stealth attack plane?


Talk about your power projection!
Link Posted: 9/18/2004 7:53:41 AM EST
It is not an axed piece of hardware. I would like to see military spending back to 50% of the federal budget, like it was in the 1950's and 1960's.
We could have all the goodies we would need to fight ANY type of battle on earth.
Also be able to pay our troops well enough to have a LARGE professional standing army capable of multiple theaters without strain.

Our new lighter more mobile military is GREAT for fighting terrorists, but we are foresaking our ability to fight a large standing army in a superpower style throwdown. Any IDIOT with common sense can see that we are going to end up in a position just like before WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. Feeling good about our accomplishments, reverting to a "peace" standing and being caught off guard. Unfortunately, UNLIKE those other examples, the weapon systems that we like and need to fight a modern war don't get assembled in a huge factory by unskilled workers. We are setting ourselves up to be screwed.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top