The Fifth Column Forum
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3    5  ..  8
Author: Subject: Assault Rifles, all calibres
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 2-11-2017 at 11:45 PM




Emtan will unveil a new assault rifle family derived from the US M-16 / M-4 design at the Defense & Security Thailand 2017 show next week. Illustrated here are the MZ-4 and the MZ-4P. (Emtan photo)
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 3-11-2017 at 10:38 PM


Order for mass production of 45,000 Turkish MPT-76 assault rifles

Posted On Thursday, 02 November 2017 14:55

The Turkish Company Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation (MKEK) and other defense industry companies Kalekalıp and Sarsılmaz have received orders for mass production of the Turkish-made MPT-76 7.62mm caliber assault rifle, Turkish defense industry sources told state-run Anadolu Turkish press Agency.


Turkish-made MPT-76 7.62mm caliber assault rifle at Eurosatory defense exhibition in Paris, France.

The Turkish Companies MKEK, Kalekalıp and Sarsılmaz will produce 20,000, 15,000 and 10,000 rifles respectively.

The Turkish Company MKEK has already delivered 3,200 MPT-76 assault rifles to the Turkish armed forces of which 500 have gone to the Turkish Presidency.

The MPT-76 aims to replace German G-3 rifles currently used by the Turkish Armed Forces and reduce dependence on foreign manufacturers.

The MPT-76 is a 7.62mm NATO modular assault rifle designed by Kalekalip and produced by the Turkish Defense Company MKEK to replace the Turkish army's Heckler & Koch G3 battle rifles. The MPT-76 was designed for robust high altitude, all weather combat, capable of functioning in extreme hot and cold weather. The development of the MPT-76 started in 2007 with a first delivery to the Turkish army in May 2014 for evaluation. Serial production began in 2015.

The design of the Turkish-made MPT-76 assault rifle is based on the AR-10 and the external layout seems very similar to the German HK417. It is a gas operated, select-fire weapon. It uses short stroke gas piston, located above the barrel, and AR-10/AR-15 style rotary bolt, bolt carrier and return spring system.

Some 450 of the Turkish-made assault rifle MPT-76 have already been delivered to Somalia, which is currently dealing with an insurgency from jihadist group al-Shabaab. In addition to Somalia, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) has added the rifle to its inventory, ordering 2,500 rifles in total.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 21-11-2017 at 05:14 PM


Colt’s M5 Enhanced Carbine a Direct Result of Australian SOCOM Query

Posted 1 min ago in AR-15, Companies, Daily News, Defense, News, Rifles by Miles



Colt’s M5 Enhanced Carbine recently drew much interest and speculation at the formidable company’s latest entry into the AR15 market. However, we’ve recently learned more about the origins of the M5 and how it came to the U.S. market, oddly enough from the Australian Defense Forces. Interestingly, the M5’s first appearance wasn’t at BIDEC 2017, and was specifically mentioned in an article in Asian Military Review’s issue of May 2017–

On 24th January 2017, Australia’s NIOA signed a partnering agreement with Colt’s Manufacturing Company for the assembly of SALWs domestically, signaling a drive for the US-based company into the Asia-Pacific. Signed at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, Nevada, the news followed the launch of Colt’s latest assault rifle, the 5.56mm M5 Enhanced Carbine. According to Colt and NIOA officials, the agreement provides a: “framework to enable NIOA to undertake manufacture of Colt’s small arms product range in Australia and integrate into Colt’s global supply chain … NIOA, as the current provider of Colt small arms for the Australian Special Forces and law enforcement communities, is committed to maximising Australian industry capability in the provision of our support to Australian agencies.

Colt’s director for international sales, Matthew Fehmel, explained how the M5 Enhanced Carbine has been designed as an assault rifle series for the: “modern (soldier) and special weapons law enforcement professional when weight, comfort and adaptability are critical … Today’s battlefields demand the accuracy, reliability and performance of the Advanced Colt Carbine-Monolithic one-piece upper receiver and free floating barrel, resulting in increased accuracy and better zero retention with after-market sighting and aiming systems than the standard M4 carbine family of weapons.

As talked about in the article, Colt Defense is aggressively pursuing a presence in Australia with the relationship with NOIA, one of Australia’s largest defense products importers, in addition to other countries in the region, especially Thailand. From a show newsletter coming out of Defense & Security 2017 held in Bangkok, a Colt representative had this to say about the M5–

There is a backlog of demand in Thailand which we are now servicing”… “We are now introducing the M5 enhanced carbine into the region,” added Fehmel. “The carbine derives from anoriginal specification developed for the Australian Defense Force (ADF) Special Operations Command (SOCOM).

Specifically, the point about the Australian Special Operations Command solicitation seemed to be interesting and upon TFB reaching out to Colt directly about the matter, company officials confirmed that the M5 did in fact come from a query within ADF SOCOM to see if Colt could develop an AR platform, select fire carbine to meet the needs of the community. As of yet this isn’t a specific RFP, solicitation, or even contract. The odd addition of a Geissele handguard on a production weapon signifies the ADF’s SOCOM interest as Geissele handguards have been chosen by numerous Special Operations units the world over. In addition, an Australian defense author and analyst that TFB reached out to, explained that SOCOM is constantly looking for new rifles to replace older ones, doing so piecemeal already.

Instead, it appears that Colt was confident enough to develop a rifle for Australian SOCOM, and then decided to offer it to other foreign defense forces, in addition to LE in the States. We don’t have a crystal ball, but Colt might even offer a civilian legal semi-automatic, 16 inch barrel version in the United States at SHOT 2018.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 28-11-2017 at 04:12 PM


US Army to Hold Industry Day for Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle



The US Army will be holding a second Industry Day for its Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle program, which seeks to replace the M249 light machine gun with a new longer-ranged, lower signature automatic rifle. The Industry Day will be held at Picatinny Arsenal on December 12th and 13th. The Army is also accepting white papers concerning NGSAR by January 16th, 2018. The updated NGSAR listing is available here.

From the special notice released with Amendment 1 of the NGSAR listing on FBO, we know that the US Army is looking for a completely transformative development in small arms. Though intended as a replacement for the M249, the NGSAR, as stated in the notice, will “combined the firepower and range of a machine gun with the precision and ergonomics of a carbine” to achieve “overmatch” by “suppressing all threats to a range of 1200 meters”, all in a package that is supposed to weigh 12 pounds or less (unloaded), with both optic and “always on” suppressor. At the same time, the NGSAR must fire lightweight ammunition that is 20-50% lighter than comparable conventional ammunition of the same caliber. In other documents included in the solicitation’s amendments, it is revealed that although the NGSAR is primarily intended to replace the M249, it remains to be seen where it will be able to fulfill other roles like DMR, MMG, and carbine. The repeated suggestion that the NGSAR will be “carbine-like” or may be able to fulfill the carbine’s role suggests that the resulting weapon would be magazine-fed, rather than belt-fed like the M249 it would replace.

Such a weapon does not exist currently, but the Army is hoping that industry partners will give it their best shot at the upcoming second Industry Day.

Overall, the NGSAR seems to be on the right track, but it may be too ambitious. The program asks vendors to develop several technologies (e.g., lightweight ammunition, always-on suppressors for automatic weapons), and wrap them up in a single off-the-shelf weapon. The notice explicitly calls for things like manuals, blanks, and dummy ammunition – not the sort of requirements you’d expect from a technology program.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 9-12-2017 at 01:57 PM


US Army’s NGSAR to Be Chambered for 6.8mm MAGNUM Round?

Posted 3 mins ago in Ammunition, Daily News, Defense, Guns & Gear, Other Gear & Gadgets, Rifles by Nathaniel F

Is the US Army pushing for a new high-powered 6.Xmm caliber with their new NGSAR program? Recently, the listing for the NGSAR industry day in December was updated with a document describing in part the agenda of the second conference.



Scheduled for 9:45 in the morning in the document is a 15 minute long presentation on “Ammunition Data – Surrogate Projectile and Specs”, presented by Todd Townsend, David Charowsky, and Mark Minisi. Minisi’s name may not be well-known, but it will be familiar to astute students of recent wound ballistics literature: It was Minisi who developed the finite element analysis-based tissue damage model, which has been refined over the past decade at ARDEC through PM Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM-MAS). Mr. Townsend is also likely representing PM-MAS, now under the leadership of Colonel Hector Gonzalez.

Although I have never spoken with him directly and do not wish to put words in his mouth, Minisi’s name tends to come up in discussions with advocates of 6.5-6.8mm infantry calibers as someone whose research supports those calibers as the “ideal” choice for future infantry weapons. Assuming this is true, there are a number of dots to connect here. First, Minisi, who may favor the 6.5-6.8mm, is evidently presenting the “surrogate” ammunition specifications for NGSAR. Second, this presentation is very likely the work of people within PM-MAS. Third, PM-MAS incorporated mentions of 7.62mm “Lightweight Small Caliber ammunition” (LSC), as well as the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration (SAAC) study in their NDIA presentation for this year. Fourth, the not-yet public SAAC study reportedly recommended, depending on the various sources one can cask, a caliber between 6.35-6.8mm for future small arms ammunition. Fifth, rumors abound on the Internet of a new round developed through ARDEC which is a 6.8mm “HVAP”, which is designed to defeat current body armor to 1,200 meters (a tall order, as we’ve discussed before).

These dots, even connected, are not enough to firmly conclude that NGSAR will necessarily be a high velocity, high muzzle energy, intermediate caliber weapon. However, they are suggestive that it could be. It is of course possible that Minisi is not advocating such a round, the 6.8mm HVAP could be just a rumor, and the 7.62mm LSC could be a stillborn companion to the now dead ICSR program.

At the same time, it does seem likely that such a caliber is in the pipeline for NGSAR. CSA Milley’s promises of a “10x improvement” in small arms, the “1200m” suppression requirement, and other smells in the air seem to indicate a weapon designed for an extremely long effective range. Such a weapon would almost certainly be paired with a caliber of equal capability, which is likely to be some kind of high velocity intermediate.

If this proves true, well… Then the Army hasn’t learned a thing from ICSR. It seems concerns about ammunition weight, recoil, and other factors with 7.62mm weapons have simply bounced off, and instead the Army decided the problem with ICSR was that it simply wasn’t ambitious enough.

We all know how that has worked out in the past.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 6-1-2018 at 08:28 PM


Ukrainian Military Receives First M4-WAC-47s

Posted 5 hours ago


WAC-47 at a range demonstration (Ukroboronprom)

Ukroboronprom, the state-owned Ukrainian defence concern, has confirmed the first deliveries of its M4-WAC-47 rifle to Ukrainian troops for evaluation. The rifle, based on the M4, is chambered in 7.62x39mm, earlier information had referred to the weapon as the M16-WAC-47.

In an end of year statement one the company’s progress in developing and delivering a variety of defence contracts ranging from small arms to armoured vehicles, Ukroboronprom confirmed that:

the first batch of M4 – WAC-47 has already been handed over to the representatives of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the National Guard and other law enforcement agencies for conducting comprehensive tests, which are a prerequisite for adoption.


WAC-47 with M203 grenade launcher (Ukroboronprom)

The M4-WAC-47 will be manufactured in Ukraine but was co-developed with the US-based defence company Aeroscraft. The new rifle is a response to Ukraine’s geopolitical situation. With the ongoing civil war and the continued use of ComBloc weapons, including small arms chambered in 7.62x39mm, and the countries desire to further integrate with NATO. The M4-WAC-47’s response to the Ukrainian military’s need for weapons chambered in both 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm is to offer a rifle with the modulairty to chamber both rounds. This is accomplished by switching the rifle’s upper receiver, which Ukroboronprom claim, can be done in less than 20 seconds in the field.

Back in January 2017, when the project was first announced, it was stated that the WAC-47 would be available in a variety of barrel lengths including: 10.5″, 11.5″, 14.5″, 18″ and 24″.

From the most recent available photographs the early examples of the rifle appear to be outfitted with an MLOK hand-guard and a Magpul MOE pistol grip and CTR carbine stock, whether these furniture choices will continue once in full production remains unclear. The rifle also uses what appears to be a proprietary magazine rather than a standard AK-pattern magazine. This limits the use of widely available AK magazines in the region and indicates the designer’s priority to ensure the lower also feeds from 5.56x45mm STANAG magazines. It’s planned that the M4-WAC-47, once adopted, will be issued to both Ukranian Ground Forces and the National Guard.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 6-1-2018 at 09:45 PM


MILIPOL 2017 – Pictures of the HK416F with kit, HK417 A2 and a MG5

Posted 11 hours ago in AR-15, NFA / Suppressors / Class III, Optics by Eric B



At Milipol in France Heckler & Koch exhibited an example of the HK416 F and what it looks like in its different configurations, including the kit that each soldier get with their weapon.

All these pictures are unique for The Firearm Blog and have not been shown before. Thanks to our secret photographer.

Some of the 416F:s will come with the HK greande launcher.

I don’t know which optic the French are going to use, I was expecting something national and a re-use of the J4 F1sight for the FAMAS.

Note that the optics on these rifles are Aimpoint CompM5 2 MOA which is a bit of a surprise (but a good choice).

The 416F is referred to as the “Arme Individuelle Future (AIF)”, which roughly translates to Individual Firearm for the Future.
According to the French Ministry of Defense 93 080 pieces of Heckler & Koch 416F will be delivered between 2017 and 2028.



38 505 units will be the HK416F Standard version.

54 575 units will be of the HK416F Short version, which cannot have the Grenade Launcher mounted as there is no space. “Short” means 11″ barrel in this case.

By 2022 half of the H&K firearms should have been delivered, so this order will keep the Germans busy for quite a while.

Below: HK269F Grenade Launcher and the cleaning kit for the 416F.



I’m sorry about the reflections from the glass and the LEDs, but this is unfortunately the conditions at most exhibitions.

Below: I made some investigations, and the knife (seems to be) a SG2000 WC, so it’s German as well!



France has quite a few good knife makers, but I guess they bought the whole concept from the Germans.

The knife retails for € 185, about 230 USD, so it’s not exactly cheap for a bayonet.

All new Original Eickhorn designed multi-purpose combat knife / bayonet with additional wire cutter, fits German Bundeswehr G36 assault rifle KEY FEATURES ● 55Si7 carbon steel blade ● 30-degree angle of flexibility in either lateral direction without damage or fracture ● Half serrated blade for cutting through ropes ● Non-reflective and corrosion resistant Kalgard treatment protects blade and cross guard ● Fibreglass enforced synthetic handle and sheath ● Handle electrical resistance insulation protects to 10.000 volts ● Polyamide sheath with strap fits all U.S. MOLLE and IDZ carrying systems of the German Bundeswehr ● Diamond blade sharpener Overall length: 30.9 cm Blade length: 17.3 cm Blade thickness: 3.6 mm Weight: 320 g Features: SG2000WC – With additional wire cutter. fits German Bundeswehr G36 assault rifle Steel: 55Si7 (HRC 51-53)



For people who complain that Heckler & Koch never make their rifles available on the civilian market, they made an exception for France with the civilian versions of the HK416F – MR223 F-S and MR223 F-C

You can check the MR223 F-s and F-C here, wish I had one of those instead or my MR223.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/29/civilian-versi...

Below: HK417 A2 in 7,62×51 mm. I’d love to own this rifle, or a MR308.



Below: The MG5 in 7,62×51 mm and a Zeiss on top.



Below: Reference photo. Note HK121 vs MG5 above. You can see the HK 121 reference here, from Enforcetac earlier in 2017.



The MG5 pictured from the other side.



You can clearly see “MG5” on the side of the MG5…but according to HK’s new nomenclature it’s supposed to be called HK121. Strange days.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unicorn
Member





Posts: 940
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: Resignedly Sceptical

[*] posted on 7-1-2018 at 11:37 AM


Given how long the Styr has been in service with the ADF, did the Army seriously look at an alternative to an upgrade, or did they slap some new bells and whistles on the old weapon to save money and avoid a new weapon and all it's associated training and cost implications?



It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed,
the lips acquire stains,
the stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 7-1-2018 at 12:09 PM


Yes...............
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unicorn
Member





Posts: 940
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: Resignedly Sceptical

[*] posted on 7-1-2018 at 04:41 PM


The latter I take it?



It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed,
the lips acquire stains,
the stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 971
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 11:40 AM


Quote: Originally posted by bug2  
Yes...............


No! Thales has manufactured the greatest weapon system known to mankind in the EF-88. It is so good no competitive / comparison testing was either needed or conducted and SOMCOMD-A’s decision not to use the weapon yet again, is nothing more than them deciding to be contrary for the sake of contrariness...





In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 11:42 AM


Sarcasm becomes you! :lol: :lol: :lol:
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 971
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 11:52 AM


Quote: Originally posted by bug2  
Sarcasm becomes you! :lol: :lol: :lol:


I just find it amazing the aboslute deafening silence over this issue. Government spends $100m+ on 30,000 + new rifle systems that is not open to competition and no-one says boo?

We spend $47m to acquire 200x 40mm grenade launchers and all hell breaks loose with contractor complaints, left, right and centre?

Particularly given NIOA now holds the manufacturing licence for the brand new Colt M5 as seen a few articles up...

Que?




In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 12:57 PM


Mystery to me mate.................once I overcome the bad smell..................

The way we spend ridiculous amounts of money, on less than best-of-class weaponry, is a "crime" long perpetuated in our set-up. Go look at the USMC thread in the Amphib section to see what they think they can do with far less money..................
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Raven22
Member





Posts: 43
Registered: 9-9-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 02:43 PM


Hang on - so the Government conducts a program to buy new weaponry so successfully it garners no bad press, and this is somehow a bad thing? Am I to believe we should have run a long and complicated competition to tell us what we already know - all new 5.56mm weapons are more less as good as each other, and there’s not a great deal of point changing until someone bites the bullet and adopts a new round. Every other competition seems to get criticised for being slow and complicated rather than just picking something we know works, yet this program is criticised for doing just that.

Or, am I lead to believe that the army should adopt the M4, a weapon the US has been trying unsuccessfully to replace for the last decade and a half, and received such poor feedback in combat after the last 15 years?

The EF88 is as good as any other weapon out there. Others may prefer a weapon with a difference balance of capabilities, but a competition is not going to find any alternatives that are objectively better.

Does everybody remember the wave of criticism of the Steyr after 20 years of constant use on ops? No, me neither.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Exsandgroper
Member





Posts: 34
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 03:12 PM


Thank you Raven22,

Where is the like button when you need it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 17249
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 05:08 PM


Automatic acceptance of the M4 or the related families like the HK416 are not what is being talked about here, but the costs entailed in how and what we develop is.

The cost associated with the rifle (not the bits and pieces that hang off it) is AUD$3,300+...............or three times what you would expect to pay for such a rifle when bulk buying tens of thousands of rifles.

By the way M-4, as the USMC have more than adequately noted, is utterly surpassed in virtually every aspect, by the HK416, certainly from an operations, range and accuracy viewpoint. The US Army persists with M-4 but are still looking for solutions to various areas and problems.......whether they eventually transition to HK416 only time will tell, but I doubt it myself, as political pressure will most likely defer such a complete changeover and acceptance of German-made rifle.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Raven22
Member





Posts: 43
Registered: 9-9-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 06:18 PM


I don’t see anything unusual with the cost. Clearly, the quoted $100 million includes for more than just the rifle. In fact, the rifle itself is about the cheapest part of the system - a commander’s variant has about $13 000 worth of fruit hanging off it. The EF88 itself is actually cheaper than the F88SA2s that proceeded it.

For comparison, NZ are paying about $59 million for less than 9000 MARS-Ls.

I’m not convinced the HK-416 is necessarily seen as the way forward either. Our own special forces stopped using it and reverted back to M4 variants, and NZ bought a the direct-gas MARS-L rather than a gas piston rifle.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 971
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 07:19 PM


Quote:
[quote=4614&tid=37&author=Raven22]Hang on - so the Government conducts a program to buy new weaponry so successfully it garners no bad press


That is the point. It isn’t being sold as a project to acquire new weaponry, it’s an ‘upgrade’ yet that is exactly what it is. A replacement rifle.

We have seen other current Steyr users move away from that platform once open comparative testing has been conducted, yet Army insists, with nothing more than a ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink - we know better’ as the evidence to show that we have acquired the best possible capability for our money.

Quote:
and this is somehow a bad thing? Am I to believe we should have run a long and complicated competition to tell us what we already know - all new 5.56mm weapons are more less as good as each other, and there’s not a great deal of point changing until someone bites the bullet and adopts a new round. Every other competition seems to get criticised for being slow and complicated rather than just picking something we know works, yet this program is criticised for doing just that.


Really? How does Army know that ‘all’ 5.56mm weapons are more or less as good as each other? What testing have they done? Sure, M4 is in-service with SOCOMD-A so there is obvious corporate knowledge on that weapon, but what other relevant experience does Army have on ‘modern’ 5.56mm rifle capability? None. That is why you test isn’t it? The exact same reason why they tested extensively on the Steyr when it was originally purchased, despite the fact that Army had long had 5.56mm weapons experience with the M16A1 series of rifles.

Quote:
Or, am I lead to believe that the army should adopt the M4, a weapon the US has been trying unsuccessfully to replace for the last decade and a half, and received such poor feedback in combat after the last 15 years?


Who said anything about the M4? I myself only suggested that Army should be required to conduct a comparison among other weapons systems when it intends to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on our primary weapon system for our soldiers, rather than just giving the contract to the local contractor for domestic political reasons.

Quote:
The EF88 is as good as any other weapon out there. Others may prefer a weapon with a difference balance of capabilities, but a competition is not going to find any alternatives that are objectively better.


Fair enough, that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it as you will have to use it, however if a better weapon could be acquired for the same money would you feel the same way? I wonder. That is why I say that comparative testing should have been conducted before this weapon was selected. Others have done that testing and haven’t chosen a Steyr based weapon and some have changed to a complete new system, rather than an upgraded older weapon, the training and logistical impost be damned... Some of whom don’t have the resources that we do either, yet still see value in changing to a new system.

Quote:
Does everybody remember the wave of criticism of the Steyr after 20 years of constant use on ops? No, me neither.


There is plenty if you want to read about it. Even the new EF-88 has attracted a wave of criticism. Sure the F-88 has done it’s job, but that is a lot different to being the best available option. So has the ASLAV. in that time... So why don’t we just go and buy an upgraded ASLAV?

There wasn’t a wave of criticism though such existed, however it is not necessarily a ringing endorsement either. Not many have criticised the Browning Hi-Power for it’s performance after the last 20 years of constant use on ops either. Do you feel it is the best available option as a sidearm for Australian troops too?




In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 971
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 8-1-2018 at 07:37 PM


Quote: Originally posted by Raven22  
I don’t see anything unusual with the cost. Clearly, the quoted $100 million includes for more than just the rifle. In fact, the rifle itself is about the cheapest part of the system - a commander’s variant has about $13 000 worth of fruit hanging off it. The EF88 itself is actually cheaper than the F88SA2s that proceeded it.

For comparison, NZ are paying about $59 million for less than 9000 MARS-Ls.

I’m not convinced the HK-416 is necessarily seen as the way forward either. Our own special forces stopped using it and reverted back to M4 variants, and NZ bought a the direct-gas MARS-L rather than a gas piston rifle.


The US Marine Corps and the French are, but that is beside the point. They have both had a good look at multiple solutions and have chosen the HK416 based platform.

I’m not saying we should have pursued HK416 or M4/M5 or the EF-88. But we SHOULD have had a decent and un-biased look to make sure. The last time the Army had a proper competition to acquire a rifle was in the 80’s...







In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Raven22
Member





Posts: 43
Registered: 9-9-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 06:00 AM


I really don’t see what you are causing a fuss about. Half your posts are about poor procurement by the Army, with long and over complicated competitions that seek a perfect solution rather than just picking a good enough solution that we know works. I could find at least 10 post about the SPG project that use those exact terms.

Here, the Army has managed to take what was scoped as a lethality upgrade project, and deliver a completely new rifle, with absolutely top of the line ancillaries, on time, on budget (less than, in fact, because they were able to find enough money to give everyone a spectre, which wasn’t the original plan), while sustaining Australian industry, with no negative press, with a confirmed and budgeted further upgrade path, that is already deployed on ops, and this is somehow a bad thing? This is all, of course, simply keeping everything chugging along until the actual small arms replacement project kicks off in a few years time.

Should we apply this same logic to other programs we run? How do we know the JSF is the best aircraft for Australia if we never ran a competition? After all, the last time the Air Force had a proper competition to acquire a fighter was in the 80’s. How do we know the Rafale isn’t a better aircraft? After all, the French have chosen it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unicorn
Member





Posts: 940
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: Resignedly Sceptical

[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 09:03 AM


As I understand it, the RAAF did complete a comparison of Typhoon, Rafale, F35 and Gripen and compared them to a baseline of F16, F15 and F18.

The F35 was chosen as it was the only available 5th Generation aircraft and the only one with a guaranteed and confirmed life long upgrade path, courtesy of the three US services operation of the aircraft.

Just saying...




It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed,
the lips acquire stains,
the stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 971
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 11:27 AM


Quote: Originally posted by Raven22  
I really don’t see what you are causing a fuss about. Half your posts are about poor procurement by the Army, with long and over complicated competitions that seek a perfect solution rather than just picking a good enough solution that we know works. I could find at least 10 post about the SPG project that use those exact terms.

Here, the Army has managed to take what was scoped as a lethality upgrade project, and deliver a completely new rifle, with absolutely top of the line ancillaries, on time, on budget (less than, in fact, because they were able to find enough money to give everyone a spectre, which wasn’t the original plan), while sustaining Australiano industry, with no negative press, with a confirmed and budgeted further upgrade path, that is already deployed on ops, and this is somehow a bad thing? This is all, of course, simply keeping everything chugging along until the actual small arms replacement project kicks off in a few years time.

Should we apply this same logic to other programs we run? How do we know the JSF is the best aircraft for Australia if we never ran a competition? After all, the last time the Air Force had a proper competition to acquire a fighter was in the 80’s. How do we know the Rafale isn’t a better aircraft? After all, the French have chosen it.


So there is no middle-ground between the idiotic insistence on ‘requirements’ for a system for a competed project that don’t actually exist (what Army said was essential in an SPG) and doing absolutely no comparison or competition whatosever when acquiring the primary weapon system for the entire Army?

Aha. Seems an entirely reasonable point to make...

As to being deployed on Ops, is that a massive achievement now? That we can actually procure a system and deploy it on Ops? Well whoopee. Maybe Army should get a ticker-tape parade for this? Actually considering many of Army’s other purchases haven’t and may never, maybe we should...

Should we also celebrate the fact that the off the shelf M4 rifles we purchased from Colt in America for SOCOMD-A also somehow managed to make it on Ops?

As for JSF, as Unicorn said it was compared by the RAAF and DSTO against every modern western fighter when it was selected. Just a tad different to the EF-88, huh?




In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Raven22
Member





Posts: 43
Registered: 9-9-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 02:38 PM


So RAAF and DSTO did a complete evaluation of Gripen, Typhoon, Rafale, F16 and F15 without ever actually flying any of the aircraft, and had enough information to make a decision worth $15 billion.

What makes you think Army didn’t have enough information about what other rifles are out there to make an informed decision, just because there wasn’t a formal competition? You are assuming lots of things that just aren’t true.

A formal competition would have proven what was already known - that all modern rifles are about as good as each other, just with a different balance of capabilities (there’s only so many ways you can fling 5.56mm down range) and that moving away from the Steyr platform would involve an awful lot of expense outside of just buying new rifles (new armouries, new weapon trunks, new weapon mounts, new training aids etc), and a significant extra training burden. It’s just not worth it for what would be perhaps 1 or 2% gain in capability. There was a study that said exactly this.

Of note, I imagine that LAND159 will determine the same thing - that unless we move away from a 5.56mm rifle firing cased ammunition, then there’s not much sense moving away from the Steyr platform. I expect an EF88A1 to be what is chosen under that program.

You can compare this program to LAND907 Phase 2. We will be essentially buying a new tank - we will ship our current tanks back to the states and receive shiny new M1A2 SEP V3s in return. It is billed as an upgrade but will be an entirely new tank. Should we hold a formal competition for this, and see if the Leopard 2A8 is a better tank before spend our half billion dollars? Or can we just use common sense and avoid the hassle?

Having the EF88 deployed on ops matters because it means the program was successful and is delivering capability. Compare that to the MARS-L, which NZ bought about the same time, and won’t deploy on ops until mid this year because they stuffed up the spec of the ambidextrous safety.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unicorn
Member





Posts: 940
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: Resignedly Sceptical

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 06:52 AM


The RAAF already had experience flying the the Super Hornet, the F15, F16 and Typhoon, through pilots on exchange with each of the parent services.

The service did despatch pilots and technical specialists to Europe to undertake familiarisation visits and briefings with the French and Swedish air forces and SAAB and Dassault.

The only aircraft that was not yet in service was the F35, it was however flying.

The evaluation was fairly unequivical, the F35 was the future of air combat for the next 25-35 years, the others were not.




It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed,
the lips acquire stains,
the stains become a warning.
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3    5  ..  8

  Go To Top

Powered by XMB 1.9.11
XMB Forum Software © 2001-2017 The XMB Group
[Queries: 16] [PHP: 69.3% - SQL: 30.7%]