The Davy Crockett.


Nothing else gives a small infantry squad the edge in battle like the Davy Crockett.

The Comanche for sure...

M-72 LAW

Don't know if they have completely phased these out, but damn, why don't they give us any?

Quoted: I wish the Marine Corps could have had a successful run with the V-22 Osprey helo.  They looked rather impressive and promised quite a lot.  It could hover like a helo and travel long distances like a fixed wing aircraft.

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.

Yes, that's why the F-35 is going to the Navy and Marines.

The A-12 was nothing but smoke and mirrors.
I had friends who worked at Whidbey Island developing the maintenance manuals and procedures for the A-12.
They sat on their asses for 18 months waiting for McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics to actualy make something.

They knocked down buildings and laid infrastructure at NAS Whidbey for the new A-12 facilities and then never built anything.

If they had been smart they would have funded the A-12 program as a development program and kept it alive while building the A-6F.

The A-6F Intruder was to have been an advanced version of the A-6E, initially known as the A-6E Upgrade. A contract was issued in July 1984, and it was anticipated that the A-6F would be the principal medium attack aircraft in the Fleet in the 1990s.  The A-6E Upgrade was to have been virtually a new design, using most of the components of the A-6E but with a new radar, a digital avionics suite, improved engines, the epoxy /composite Boeing wing, and additional weapons stations.

The plane was to have been powered by a pair of General Electric F404-GE-400D turbofans, which were to be smokeless. An third offensive weapons rack was to be added underneath each wing. A new Norden synthetic aperture radar (sometimes known as AN/APQ-173) was to be fitted, and the aircraft was to be capable of carrying the AIM-120A AMRAAM air-to-air missile, which would have given the Intruder an air-to-air capability. The cockpit instrumentation was to be wholly new, with digital instruments being added and multifunction displays provided that were all driven by an AYX-14 computer. The AN/APN-153 Doppler radar was to be replaced by a Collins GPS system. The AN/ALQ-165 Airborne Self-Protection Jammer (ASPJ) was to be fitted.  Externally, the A-6F would differ by having an additional dorsal scoop for cooling air.

Five full-scale development A-6Fs were ordered. They were diverted from a batch of A-6Es (BuNos 162183/162187), and were known as "Intruder II". They were fitted with Grumman metal wings, since the Boeing composite wings were not yet ready. BuNo 163183 was the aerodynamic and propulsion test vehicle and flew for the first time on August 26, 1987, with Harry Hentx and Dave Goulette at the controls. BuNo 162184 followed on November 23. 162185 was the Digital Systems Development aircraft and was used as the test bed for the AN/APQ-173 radar and other advanced avionics systems, and flew for the first time on August 22, 1988. However, by this time, the A-6F project had been cancelled, and the last two A-6Fs had already been mothballed without being flown. Budgetary constraints were cited as the reason for the cancellation, but the real reason was probably the existence of the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) stealth attack aircraft project which was currently under development as the A-12 and which was still secret at the time. Unfortunately, the A-12 project was itself cancelled by Seceretary of Defense Dick Cheney on January 7, 1991. Mismanagement and delays were cited as the reasons.

Quoted: 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!

SKYNET

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.

Quoted: The Grizzly. I watched the prototype unloaded and driven to its display area at the museum here at FLW last week. sad.

My XO in ROTC helped design that thing.  He figured it would be axed.

+1 on Crusader.  That was one seriously awesome weapon system.

Quoted: 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.

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?

Quoted: Is any of this expensive crap really going to help fight terrorists?

Quoted: Quoted: Is any of this expensive crap really going to help fight terrorists?

FU

Quoted: +1 Crusader

+1

Quoted: M-72 LAW Don't know if they have completely phased these out, but damn, why don't they give us any?

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...

Quoted: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?

"Hey, just what you see pal"

Quoted: The Davy Crockett. www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy1.jpg Nothing else gives a small infantry squad the edge in battle like the Davy Crockett.

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')...

Quoted: 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.)...

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.

Quoted: Bring back Napalm… very little has 'shock and Awe' like a napalm strike…

Aw shucks....    

Quoted: 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!

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...

Quoted: 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.

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...

Quoted: Quoted: M-72 LAW Don't know if they have completely phased these out, but damn, why don't they give us any? 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...

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.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: M-72 LAW Don't know if they have completely phased these out, but damn, why don't they give us any? 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... 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.

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...

Quoted: Comanche, would have been an awsome helo.

+1

I would have like to have seen the HK G11 go farther than what it did.

Quoted: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?

Crusader.  


Edit:  Sorry, hepcat85: I posted this before I saw yours.  I should've know someone would beat me to it.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: M-72 LAW Don't know if they have completely phased these out, but damn, why don't they give us any? 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... 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. 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...

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.

M202 FLASH





M202 FLASH




M48 flamethrower tank

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.

Quoted: M202 FLASH www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/flame/M202A1.gif M202 FLASH M48 flamethrower tank www.thortrains.net/armymen/tankfla2.jpg

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.

Quoted: 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.

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)

Quoted: Quoted: 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. Or in mountains, or swamps, or jungles, or......

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.  

Quoted: ... 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

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.

Quoted: Quoted: … Ask Ross, ArmdLbrl or DrMark if you don’t believe me Why me?  I am actually kind of ambivilant about that cancellation.

... allrighty then:

… Ask Ross ArmdLbrl or DrMark if you don’t believe me  

Napalm
Flame throwers
NEUTRON BOMB

Atomic Betty

Quoted: Quoted: Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range? web.wt.net/~bucko/PlasmaRif.jpg Crusader.   Edit:  Sorry, hepcat85: I posted this before I saw yours.  I should've know someone would beat me to it.

No prob man....great minds think alike.

Quoted: NEUTRON BOMB

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...

The best weapon system that never was

www.g2mil.com/efogm.htm

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.