The Glory Might of the XM29.
 

This thing:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/oicw1.jpg

Is the XM29. A piece of shit gun that has a big, stupid computer scope on the top and a airburst grenade launcher on the bottom. It also has a assault beneath the grenade launcher.

This thread is dedicated to the single biggest military waste of American Tax Dollars in the History of the US Military. Other than nukes and chemical Weapons.

This thread is where we all shake our mighty, pissed off conservative fists at the stupidity of the US Military.

Well this project was abandoned years ago because it was just crap.

What pisses me off is that the South Korean Army is issuing some XM29 rip-off in 2010. I Mean, Come On!

Why, they got the daewoo, which is pretty much a reliable AR

Well at least NORTH Korea isn't issueing them.

I thought the project had potential if they could have shrunk it down to the smaller model as seen on the Mail Call page. But they gave up early in the game.

They are only issuing those to the Grenadiers to replace the M203s the South Korean copy of the M203.

If the DPRK was issueing them we should be happy. They would be easy to waste.

Also, that one in Mail Call was a mockup.

I know, but that was what they were hoping to build in the future.

I thought that concept seemed interesting.

Interesting as laser weapons. We need that witty british guy here to make fun of this gun, Vangelis.

I dunno man, if Daewoo's rifles are anything like their pistols, I wouldn't hold my breath.

The XM29 was a good idea that technology hasn't yet matured enough to make practical. Give it time, it'll reappear.

Daewoo rifles are cool.

I hate how a lot of NATO countries are trying those airburst rifles. They are almost as retarded as those Future Soldier bullshit that a lot of countries are trying to make.

Alot of NATO countries are trying them because once they get it right, it'll be a huge tactical advantage, and whoever has it in service first will not only have that advantage, they'll be in a position to make alot of money off of it.

Haven't exactly fired it extensively under field conditions, but I've certainly handled them and I wasn't overly impressed.

The XM29 is hardly the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars by the U.S. military. Off the top of my head, I can think of a dozen DoD contracts that should have never been awarded, and idiotic prototypes that were doomed to fail from the beginning and cost WAY more, but that's another story.

The main problem with the OICW/SABR program was that it was based on a flawed idea originating back to the 1980s. The DoD's analysts back then issued a report called the SAMP (Small Arms Master Plan), which basically said that the trend in small arms for the future was going to be integrating computer technology into them to make them more accurate. By the late-1990s, when R.I.S. was introduced for the M4, it became pretty obvious that the trend of the future was going to be modularity, not "Fifth Element"/"Starship Troopers"-type bullshit.

It seems ridiculous to us in retrospect, given how absurdly huge and expensive the XM29 turned out to be, but U.S. military thinking in the 1990s was still rooted in the Cold War era - which was basically to anticipate and plan for any future trends in weaponry so that the Russians or Chinese didn't beat us to the punch, and then invest a shitload of money into this new trend. Now that the DoD has begun to think in terms of "4th generation"/asymmetrical warfare (meaning, they expect to fight ragtag Islamic militias armed with old AKs and RPGs, rather than well-equipped Commie states on a nearly-equal technological footing), they no longer see the need to have the latest, greatest weaponry that money can buy. That's why the DoD is now in no hurry to replace the direct impingement M16 series rifles, despite all the people who insist that we urgently need the 416 or the SCAR or whatever else.

See that men, guys? He knows shit.

Thank you Matt for such a imformative post. Also, could you talk about those DoD contracts? I'm sure the Future Soldier bullshit will be part of it.

That's the same logic they're finally applying across the board. Most US technology now in service or about to be was designed for large scale armored engagements when the Soviets finally crossed the Fulda gap.

You want to talk about wastes of money, what about the F-22 (which they're finally getting rid of)? Yeah, it's the most capable fighter aircraft ever made. It's also the most expensive. The F-15 and new F/A-18s are already superior to or at least competetive with anything they're likely to come up against, and the F-35 is more than good enough for a next step and alot cheaper.

Or the gas turbine engine on the Abrams. Makes it pretty much the worst gas guzzler ever made, and hard as hell for infantry to operate with for fear of getting cooked by the exhaust. Add to that the fact that the thing is basically useless inside narrow city streets, and whats the point? Sure, it's probably the most effective tank around for armor-on-armor engagement, and the most effective enemy tank its ever engaged were Iraqi T-72 knock-offs. That's why the vehicle of the future is the Striker (which has its own issues, but that's another story).

I like some of the elements of the Future Soldier program more than I like the program itself.

I think the adoption of the F/A-18 by the Navy to be a huge waste of money. Mostly because it was quite obviously inferior to the F-16, its competitor in the Lightweight Fighter Program (which, most people forget, was supposed to select a fighter that would be standardized in both the USAF and Navy). I also have an extremely negative attitude towards the AH-64 Apache.

I agree with the F-22 thing. The F-35 is much better. The US Govt. and the Russian Goverment should team up and make tanks together. The Russians make effective and cheap tanks.

Yeah, I personally didn't shed a tear when Obama's administration announced they weren't going to fund any more F-22s. Obama may be a liberal who thinks the DoD's budget is better used in his bullshit stimulus and healthcare plans, but he's basically right about the F-22 - even if it's for the wrong reasons.

The Abrams is an excellent tank. But driving it into urban areas (where it moves much slower due to the inherent obstacles) is the dumbest thing you can do. The Russians learned the hard way in Chechnya that bringing tanks into cities makes them vulnerable to RPG gunners hiding on rooftops, and that's why our Abrams tanks became RPG magnets early in the war.

Anyway, U.S. military thinking has improved a LOT in the past five years, since Rumsfeld's tenure (which I thought was disastrous). But unfortunately for those of us who are big into hardware, it's not quite the same as the Cold War. The kind of wars we fight nowadays are wars where it doesn't matter if an M1-A2 is better than a T-90, or if the SCAR is a better choice than an M4. Today's wars are more about ground-level intelligence than weaponry.

Talk more about the Future Soldier project. Please.

Not sure what I can tell you about it that you don't already know. But it is important to remember that the Land Warrior program, like the OICW program, dates back to the late-80s, early-90s, so it's a product of Cold War era thinking. That by itself should be a red flag.

It's designed to improve soldier's abilities in urban warfare, which by itself isn't a bad idea (in Iraq, we've done lots of fighting in cities). But it's also based mostly on the assumption that our soldiers will be encountering enemies who are well-equipped, well-trained, and who will actually attempt to engage them in CQB. The jihadists just aren't like that - they're poorly armed and even more poorly trained, so their style is to avoid fighting as much as possible (which is why IEDs are so popular).

As I've said, street-level intelligence and winning hearts and minds are the main ingredients in successful counter-insurgency warfare. Technology just doesn't matter, because you can expect that your opponents will have nothing but the same rusty old AKs and RPGs that your dad (or even his dad) encountered in combat decades ago. In that kind of warfare, using high-tech equipment is like using an axe to do triple-bypass surgery.

Very informative Matt. You definately know more about this stuff than I do. I focus too much on guns alone, maybe I should expand my political and warfare knowledge.

Know any good sites (or wikipedia pages) that can help me out?

Not anything too specific. And frankly, there are people doing much more specific and more advanced degrees in this stuff than myself. I learned a lot from the exchange program I did at King's College London (they have a wonderful War Studies department), lots more at my last internship. My undergraduate thesis dealt with the CI lessons of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

I guess I would recommend reading the External Links on the Wikipedia page on 4th Generation/Asymmetrical warfare, for starter's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Generation_Warfare

Thanks, I'll look over it.

A heavy, complicated, airburst grenade launcher that needs a giant ridiculously advanced computer scope to be deployed accurately vs. a light, simple M203 that only needs a small leaf sight to be deployed with accuracy? :confused:

Hmm... considering the point in modern warfare is to be lighter and faster, I'd go with the 203.

Think about it from a tactical standpoint. The South Koreans are in the same position we were in the Fulda gap - if war comes, they know exactly where and with who and have been preparing for it for 60 years. It's not going to be mobile warfare, they're going to be fighting from the same defensive positions they've been preparing since 1953.

Now, I'm not saying I'm entirely sold on the system being ready for battlefield employment myself, but if you think about the tactical problem it makes alot of sense for them.

Exactly, South Korea is stuck in a Cold War-type situation with the North where measures of conventional armed strength (number/quality of personnel and equipment, battlefield formations, primary and secondary strike capabilities, etc.) still apply.

Although it is important to keep in mind that North Korea's conventional military capabilities are highly overrated by many analysts. I'm personally far more worried about the possibility of them using the combination of their nuclear/chemical weapons expertise and their extremely well-trained intelligence operatives to carry out terrorist acts, which would then be blamed on non-state entities. I think a situation like that is more likely than the Kims ever launching a nuke-tipped ICBM.

Not that I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with you, but considering the F35 was designed from the outset as a strike fighter (much like the F16 and F/A-18), asking it to do the job of an F15 or F22 is only going to result in the US losing a lot of planes (and possibly pilots) when Su-37s start showing up.

Su-37s. Really? Did you forget what Matt said? We aren't going to fight fighter jets in a long time.

It's better to have a condom and not need it, than to need a condom and not have one. [/random gratuitous Aliens vs Predator reference]

And...which one of us is Matt? :confused:

MT2008. It's nice to train and arm up against both conventional threats AND unconventional ones, but a lot of those contracts like the Future Soldier and the F-22 and XM29 are just shit. We have a good military that can kick conventional ass. I'm sure we could win a war with North Korea. Of course, there would be Millions dead and Seoul would be in shambles and there would be shit loads of refugees crossing the border into the South and China.

I agree on Future Force Warrior and such, but aircraft are getting ever more advanced as time goes by, especially Russian designs like the Su-37. And with the rapidly-deteriorating relationship between the US and Russia, they're more than likely going to be willing to sell to our enemies and possibly even do the flying for them. We will eventually find ourselves in a conventional war where air superiority is key. And an aircraft like the Sukhoi that can snap its nose back in mid-air to take a potshot at a trailing fighter is going to be a severe threat to our "adequate" F15s and F18s that can't even hope to match that kind of maneuverability. I'm not saying technology trumps all, but it definitely plays a big part. An aircraft like the F22 that can match the aerodynamic capabilities of the most advanced of OpFor aircraft is only going to make the fight easier and a bit safer for our guys.

Well, i do like the F-22 a little. But the F-35 is just way better. What we need is to make the AC-130 the standard issue Ground Attack plane and buy hundreds of them. Those things could win wars.

And Spartan, The US-Russian Relations are deteriorating as fast as you think.

I have my opinion like everyone else, and Spartan198 is free to disagree with me. What Matt says is not gospel turth.

I also didn't say we don't need fighter jets for a long time; I simply question whether we really need the F-22 in particular. If you really don't think we need fighter jets, PERIOD, then go vote for Cynthia McKinney or something. :D

Matt's word is law, dammit.

Also, the F-INSAS like the rest of the Future soldier shit, looks horrible. However, since it's India that is doing it, don't they have better places to invest their money? Like education to fix the 61 percent of Indians that are illiterate. How about, fixing the overpopulation? Seriously, India doesn't need this shit. Actually, no country needs this shit.

First of all, I do agree with you that the F-35 cannot perform the same role for which the F-22 was designed. They are two very different types of fighters with different capabilities.

As for the Su-37 (which was the main argument in Congress used to argue for more F-22s), there are a whole bunch of issues I have with this:

(1.) The Su-37 is an updated version of the Su-27 Flanker, an airframe which is now 30+ years old, just like the F-15. It's considered a 4.5 Generation fighter, instead of a 5th Generation fighter like the F-22. Both the Su-27 and F-15 are 4th generation fighters. What Russia has yet to develop (at least efficiently) is a 5th Generation fighter. And the Chinese aren't any closer.

(2.) Although particular circumstance vary, most analysts agree that generally speaking, an American fighter of the same (or even a slightly older) generation as a Russian fighter is still superior. The Su-37 integrates technology into the Su-27 (namely, fly-by-wire) that the U.S. has been perfecting since the FIRST incarnation of the F-15. Even though engineers might debate performance aspects of the two aircraft (i.e. the thrust-to-weight ratio of a Sukhoi's engines versus an F-15), at the end of the day, the F-15 pilot still has battlefield capabilities that a Sukhoi pilot doesn't. Russia is WAY behind us in everything from HUD design to countermeasures.

(3.) Comparing individual fighter aircraft to each other is probably the single WORST way to argue that one air force is better-equipped than any of the others. Fighters are the smallest part of the big picture. Let me put it this way: It doesn't matter if the USAF ever tries to bomb Venezuela and Hugo Chavez sends his new Su-37s out to deny us air superiority. Even against our F-15s, he doesn't stand a chance in hell. His fighters might be half a generation ahead of ours on paper. But his AF doesn't have our satellites, our AWACS, our training and experience, and our industrial capabilities.

Or, if you want a historical (as opposed to theoretical) example, think of Iran's air force after the Islamic Revolution. Iran has F-14s that we sold the Shah back in the 1970s. But the pilots that we trained back in those days have long since retired, while the U.S. has hit Iran's military with an embargo on spare parts. Without well-trained pilots and American industrial support, the F-14s have basically been collecting rust in the hangers since the Iran-Iraq War ended (and even in that war, Iran's F-14s didn't exactly do an outstanding job against Iraq's older-model MiGs and Sukhois).

So, the point is, a country that buys the Su-37 from the Russians today would be the same situation. And that's why they will NEVER stand a chance against the USAF, no matter what fighters they have. And it's also why I think even our aging F-15s, as long as they are flown by American pilots and supported by American defense contractors, will wipe the floor with even Su-37s, just about any day of the week.

Another point worth mentioning...while Russian pilots may be training to perform this maneuver, can you seriously even begin to imagine Venezuelan or Iranian pilots being that good?

I remember how it used to be that everyone was afraid of the MiG-29 because of an exercise conducted between the USAF and Luftwaffe where an ex-East German MiG-29 managed to shoot down an F-16C in close combat. There were some analysts who wondered if the same thing would happen during ops against the Serbian AF during Operation Allied Force in 1999 (since the Serbs had working MiG-29s to deploy back then). As it turned out, of course, USAF and Dutch F-16s shot down several of the Serbs' MiGs. Why? Because German and Russian pilots are a million times better than Serb pilots, and because the Serb MiGs had been plagued by a lack of spare parts since the Soviet Union fell.

Would the Brazilian Air Force be a match for the Venezuelan Air Force?

Once the F-X2 program selects its choice for the new fighter (and most analysts agree it'll probably be the Dassault Rafael), I'd say yes. Brazil already has defense infrastructure and resources vastly superior to that of Venezuela. But a new fighter is a lot more important for Brazil than it is for us (though the Mirage 2000s currently in service are quite capable in their own right).

Also, my understanding is that Brazilian modernization plans are mostly emphasizing naval expansion right now. There are also issues with outdated equipment and lack of funding in the Army (something like half of the armored vehicles in their inventory are not serviceable).

There's another thing to consider about Venezuela, too - most of Chavez' military (who started their careers when Venezuela was still run by pro-Western governments) hates his ass and might mutiny. The whole reason he's buying so much Russian hardware is that he's trying to build up a separate military to the one that existed before he took power (in the same way that Khomeini had to form the Revolutionary Guard to counter-balance the Shah's military). Coups remain a huge concern for Chavez.

I was impressed with the F22 after watching Transformers, but it does seem like an overkilling superior design we don't need right now. And the M61A2 Gatling gun it is armed with has a rather small amount of ammo.

I figured I'd include some info on guns again, because this gun based thread is going fighter jet and politics on us.

If you're going for stupid rifle designs, the OICW really isn't even in the same league as some of the ridiculous projects that preceded it, particularly SPIW / SALVO, which managed a wonderful combination of impossible initial goals and ridiculous demands of the prototypes, which ended up being some truly bizarre weapons. What can you really say about a flechette-firing rifle with internally discarded sabots, a grenade launcher with a 25-pound trigger pull, a demand that an over-under weapon loaded with 60 5.6mm flechettes and 3 40mm grenades come in under ten pounds, and the realisation, years into the project, that the flechette rounds would actually deflect off raindrops?

As for stupidest tank engine, the turbine might not make sense in today's world, but the US trumped it many years ago with a tank that wouldn't make sense in this world or any other. The T-95 or T-28 had four sets of treads, 12 inches of frontal armour, a 105mm main gun and weighed 95 tons. And what was it powered by? Um...One Sherman engine, with an almighty 5.2 hp / ton.