The Glory Might of the XM29.

[Gunmaster45]

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

I thought that concept seemed interesting.

[MT2008]

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.

[Ace Oliveira]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

[Nyles]

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).

[Ace Oliveira]

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Nyles

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Nyles

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).

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.

[Ace Oliveira]

Talk more about the Future Soldier project. Please.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Nyles

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.

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.

[Ace Oliveira]

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

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

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.

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.