New weapon for military: shoot like a tank!

[gmanbat]

New rifle is lighter and hits farther and harder. It is designed to penetrate better body armor troops have been coming against.
I'd like to know what you vets think of it.
Thanks!
Army's new machine gun will blast like battle tanks | Fox News

 

[vt_shooter]

What would the U.S.'s response be if the Chinese fielded something laser based, something beyond inhumane that takes out the eyes of a whole battlefield enemy soldiers? At some point some country is going to field something horrific that leverages today's technology, and other countries will have to follow suit lest they stand zero chance on the battle field. Maybe at that point battle will be forced to become battle between competing swarms of autonomous drones because it'd too horrific to put people out there. I can envision the days of small kinetic weapons waning.

 

[S&WsRsweet]

There is no telling what they have and we have that no one talks about. The true cutting edge weaponry technology you won't see on the news. I was told about planes that fly without pilots by a newly retired navy officer back in the 70s ,I thought he was just shooting bull .Planes without pilots in combat ,cameras that can take pictures in the dark clear enough to read a license plate ! Come on back in the 70s think about it our military had developed that technology back then or were at least developing and refining but it wasn't on the local news .

 

[vonn]

No matter the innovative weapons it will always take a grunt to possess and hold a critical area of the battlefield. Vietnam and Afghanistan both illustrated that high tech is not the only way to fight a war. We have weapons that will end the world now. I am much more afraid of biological weapons that could decimate large parts of the population before they were countered. If it ever gets to WW3 I don’t think there will be a winner.

 

[ace22]

many years ago i heard that actual technology was a minimum 15-20 years ahead of what they actually tell us. as fast as technology has advanced in recent years there's no telling what capabilities are available now or on the horizon.

 

[Ozark Marine]

Any weapon we develop to kill the enemy faster, furthest and more gruesomely is good.

 

[GaryS]

If you actually read the article, there is much less than the headline would lead you to think there is. The Army is looking to replace the existing M249 with a different caliber. They want something with a higher velocity round, that also has more bullet mass. The 5.56 has velocity, but not enough mass. The 7.62 has mass, but not enough velocity.

The "new" gun is in early development and there isn't even a round for it yet.

The article also said the new gun will be capable of firing 60 rounds... a minute.

I'm not at all impressed with the "defense analyst" who wrote the article.

 

[Protocall_Design]

Any weapon we develop to kill the enemy faster, furthest and more gruesomely is good.

The problem is - they only have to capture one, then they can copy it.

 

[Skeet 028]

All that stuff said is somewhat confusing. The laws of physics still apply in some way. Beam weapons...Lasers ...sonics..ok...something new. Lighter faster Much more devastating? Makes for a good headline...something like the old thing about the "new" 5.56....tumbling bullets tearing your arms off.

 

[Rustyt1953]

What would the U.S.'s response be if the Chinese fielded something laser based, something beyond inhumane that takes out the eyes of a whole battlefield enemy soldiers? .

Hang disco balls from the bayonet lugs.

 

[GaryS]

Which is why we aren't likely to see any sort of handheld energy weapon in the near future. The Air Force had an airplane based laser that was used to shoot down a satellite in a test.

It was housed in a 747 as I recall, because it needed that much energy to power it.

I think we're going to see firearms more or less as we know them for quite some time. Even caseless ammunition, which was the next big thing about 30 years ago never became popular.

All that stuff said is somewhat confusing. The laws of physics still apply in some way. Beam weapons...Lasers ...sonics..ok...something new. Lighter faster Much more devastating? Makes for a good headline...something like the old thing about the "new" 5.56....tumbling bullets tearing your arms off.

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

Which is why we aren't likely to see any sort of handheld energy weapon in the near future. The Air Force had an airplane based laser that was used to shoot down a satellite in a test.

It was housed in a 747 as I recall, because it needed that much energy to power it.

I think we're going to see firearms more or less as we know them for quite some time. Even caseless ammunition, which was the next big thing about 30 years ago never became popular.

True. While the "Brown Bess" was state of the art in its day, so are our weapons today. I see what the progression will be eventually and yet there will still be similarities. While I do not see "Capt Kirk's phaser" any time in our future, small arms are evolutionary like everything else. The next step up will be caseless, but not in the way caseless has been presented in the past. The calibers will be smaller, velocity and ranges higher, and the bullets will be like micro versions of a guided missile; they will lock on and follow specifics targets including over and around obstacles. The weapons will be made of polymers and ceramics, not metal. They will be smaller, lighter, and more ergonomic and similar to operate or make mission specific. Less than a rifle, but more than a pistol, and usable in all enviroments from underwater to out in space with no modifications. Because of this, infantry units will be much smaller than those of today and the tactics will change to accomodate. Down the road, caseless will be obsolete and replaced by railgun technology firing little more than polymer needles at such velocity that even machine guns will be gone and the basic infantryman will be a threat to everything up to and including small ships.

Until that comes to pass, anything the military will field (note that I didn't say "has") to the troops will be merely another look to systems that have been around in some form for over a century.

Like adapting a pistol...when was the last time a battle was won using one?

 

[Farmer17]

The article is total BS. A SAW machingun that hits like a Abrams Tank? I don't think so. If they are just wanting a little more velocity and mass to penetrate armor, maybe something with ballistics like a .240 Weatherby Magnum?

 

[LVSteve]

What would the U.S.'s response be if the Chinese fielded something laser based, something beyond inhumane that takes out the eyes of a whole battlefield enemy soldiers?

See "Laser Dazzle Sight" from 1982 as fitted to Royal Navy warships.

 

[lkabug]

Remember those Starlight scopes? So High-tech we were issued Thermite Grenades to destroy them if we had to leave them behind.

 

[LVSteve]

Other articles I'm reading on this new weapon suggest chamber pressures anything from 60 to 80 kpsi. The phrase "throat erosion" springs to mind unless somebody has come up with some sexy cool burning propellant. Then there is the issue of locking the bolt to the barrel safely and how the gun handles gas in the event of a case failure.

 

[JH1951]

I think Tesla left a few nuggets they are still figuring out.

 

[ChuckS1]

So the Army says it needs a new infantry weapon to kill bad guys at 2000 yards. I guess someone forgot we already have mortars that do this. But then, my Army was one with the "why take out a point target when you can take out a whole grid square?" approach to indirect fire. indirect fire has always been the biggest killer on the battlefield.

 

[Firesticks]

Jim Goodall speaking of Ben Rich who was the second director of Lockheed's Skunkworks Projects (there has only been 3 directors since it's inception)---- "About ten days before he died, I was speaking to Ben on the telephone at the USC Medical Center in LA. And he said, ‘Jim, we have things out in the desert that are fifty years beyond what you can comprehend. "

 

[DWalt]

Remember the XM29 OICW (20mm and 5.56mm combination)? That was supposed to be the end-all and be-all of personal ground combat weapons for the rest of the 21st century. The Army poured many millions into its development amid tons of publicity. But what happened? Nothing. And it's doubtful the OICW will ever be resurrected. Most of us who knew anything about the OICW also suspected it was doomed from the start, just based upon cost alone. I used to keep a large glossy Army publicity poster about it tacked on the wall over my desk just to remind me how screwed up the Army was. I wish I had kept that poster.

I believe that variants of the basic M16/M4/M249 designs will remain the principal small arms weapons in U. S. combat use when we are all in our graves.

"Like adapting a pistol...when was the last time a battle was won using one?"
Exactly. The only purpose of having a handgun in combat is to provide something to use if you have nothing better to hold off the enemy with until someone with a rifle shows up to rescue you.