Everyone who regularly reads my blog knows me as a military nutcase, so I decided to try a new blog series. Basically, every so often I'll give reports of military news, mostly on new weapons and gadgets. So, here is my first volume of Raven's Military News!
Iraq Wants the Abrams
The new Iraqi government has been putting a lot of effort into rebuilding their military since coming to power. The Iraqi Army was devastated, and needs a lot of work before it can effectively defend the new Iraqi government and maintain peace. So far, it has relied heavily on donations, from the 77 T-72s donated by Hungary, to hundreds of light vehicles from Jordan, Pakistan, and the UAE. However, Iraq now has written a wish list for $2.16 billion in US military vehicles and spare parts.
Most notably is 140 M1A2M Abrams tanks, an export version of the M1A2 Abrams, and 8 M88A2 Recovery Vehicles. Ironic that the same series of tanks that engineered the defeat of the Iraqi Army in two wars will become its main battle tank of choice. This will make Iraq the fourth Middle Eastern country to use the M1 series of tanks (Along with Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia) as well as the fifth non-American country (Australia has 59 M1A1 AIM SA tanks) to use the tank.
The list doesn't end there. It also includes hundreds of other military vehicles and tons of gear from radios to spare engines for their M1A2Ms.
Iranian Missile Test Photo HoaxThis happened quite a while ago, but I'll include it here. Look at this photo comparison. The top image is the one that Iran released to the media for what can only be assumed to be propaganda purposes. However, the bottom one is the original image, which has since been leaked.
Yep, you guessed it, Iran altered the image to include four missiles, when the actual test only had three. However, notice the launcher where the fourth missile was. It has a missile on it. Analysts guess that the fourth missile was, in fact, a dud, and the image they released was altered to try and cover up this embarrassing fact.
After all, you can't try to scare your enemies with images of failed hardware, right?
Laser Truck Requires Funding
Directed Energy Weapons (AKA Lasers) are gaining momentum in the world of military hardware.
One high profile project is by Boeing and is what can only be called a "Laser Truck." The project was requested by the Pentagon over a year ago to develop a defensive laser that could be mounted on an armored truck. The idea was to place them in Green Zones to use against the occasional mortar attack by insurgents. Both Boeing and Northrop Grumman have technology demonstrators. All that is needed now is for the Army to award a contract for further development.
Another high profile laser weapon is Boeing's Airborne Laser, which mounts a high energy laser on a Boeing 747-400F. The system is intended to intercept ICBMs or similar weapons like Scuds, and should also be capable of destroying enemy bombers.
The main thing is that, with the way that the Iraq War is currently going, it will probably be over by time the Laser Truck is ready for fielding.
Special Forces Operators Give SCAR Rifle Thumbs-Up
The FN SCAR, short for SOF Combat Assault Rifle, is a new modular rifle designed for SOCOM. Recently a handful of US Special Forces Operators were given a chance to test the new rifle. The results?
Several even went so far as to say that they are "ready to trade in their M4s for the SCAR."
The SCAR, with its modular design, is highly customizable from everything from barrel length to attachments thanks to its standard rail system. It also has a folding stock of adjustable length and comes in two versions: Mk-16 (Fires 5.56x45mm NATO rounds) and the Mk-17 (Fires 7.62x51mm NATO rounds). The ability to be customized by barrel length also allows the SCAR to fill out different roles, from CQB (Close Quarters Battle) to marksmen. The rifle is also ambidextrous.
Now, it should be noted that these tests were under controlled conditions, and the operators didn't have a lot of time with the SCAR. It did, however, make a good first impression, and is already scheduled for limited service for further testing. In any case, it is good to hear opinions from the soldiers themselves on the new gear, instead of from a company spokesmen or some top pencil-pusher who says it is good based solely on what people tell him. You run into less situations like the current Marine body armor debacle, where most of the soldiers hate the new gear.
----
I suppose that is enough for now. Information courtesy of Defense Tech, Military.com, Popular Mechanics, and other websites that they work with. Images mostly from Wikipedia.
Comments
I remember that too. It was on Future Weapons a while back. It was designed for crowd control and is capable of targeting a single person in a crowd of hundreds. The idea is that you can safely take down the rioters in the middle of a crowd of innocent people.
I don't think it used microwaves though, I think it was something else.
Bangell:
There are several rifles that are improvements over the M16/M4. It is just an example of military politics. Many guys in Washington don't see the point in buying new weapons and gear, no matter how much better a new potential replacement is. The worst part is that these people usually know little to nothing about the military (Or, at least have outdated views), and are either just penny-pinching or basing their opinion off of think-tanks that view everything as ones and zeros, including human lives.
Alternative explanations include that the military is only one thing of many that needs funding by the U.S. taxpayers. There is already a huge budget deficit in the U.S. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to fund all this replacement gear? If not, then what other programs are you going to take money away from in order to fund it? Social Security? (Stealing from old people) Medicare? (Stealing from sick people)
At the end of the day, you either need to balance the budget or pass along debts to be paid by future generations of taxpayers....debts financed by governments like China.
Remember, every penny spent on something either needs to be borrowed or collected in taxes. Federal budgeting is like personal budgeting on a much larger scale. Even though I may WANT the newest model 50" Plasma 1080P television since it would be an upgrade for my existing TVs, my existing TVs works just fine and I have to spend my money on things like food and rent.
I guess at the end of the day, that's why we live in a Democracy. If we don't like the current budget priorities our elected representatives have, we're free to vote them out of office.
I didn't really think before posted, so I'll get into this now. Budget isn't fully the issue with finding a replacement for the M4/M16. Rather, it is the fact that the entire procurement process is stuffed full of politics and infighting. See, Colt, the manufacturer of the M4 and M16, has a death grip on Washington. They have quite a few powerful people in their pockets. Meanwhile, ALL of the potential M4/M16 replacements are made by other companies: XM8 and HK416 are by Heckler & Koch, SCAR is by Fabrique Nationale, and so on. Don't believe me that this is going on? I have proof.
AWG, a new US Army task force that specializes in unconventional warfare that was formed at the start of the War on Terror, recently received the HK416 for their troops that are about to go to Iraq. They had the rifles in their hands and were ready to go. However, a senator that is on Colt's payroll started raising hell, saying that the HK416s are a pointless waste of money. So, AWG's HK416s got taken away and they were reissued brand new M4s, fresh from Colt.
Here is the thing, Jim. Our troops really could use one of the rifles that are potential replacements for the M4, such as the HK416 or the XM8. The M4 is a good rifle, but they aren't suited for desert combat. Our troops have been complaining about the M4s ever since the war started. Lets look at the tests:
In a trial under "extreme dust conditions," the M4 suffered over 800 stoppages after firing 6,000 rounds. Meanwhile, the XM8 suffered a mere 127. In another test, a brand new M4 with generous amounts of lube still suffered hundreds of more stoppages than the XM8 in similar conditions. Simply put, the M4 is prone to failure in dusty, sandy environments. Our troops have been saying this for years, but most of the projects designed to fix this have been canned, and it rarely has to do with budget concerns. It is mostly one of two things: Political BS regarding the procurement of a non-Colt rifle to replace the M4, or quite simply, M4/M16 fanboyism by the higher powers in Washington.
But if budget was really the concern, then I can talk about that too. Look around, you'll see a lot of wasted funding in our military budget that prevents our soldiers from getting the stuff they really need. Case in point, the Modular Tactical Vest. The Marines hated this thing even before it was bought. They didn't want it. However, someone still went ahead and approved the purchase of 84,000 of them for over $30 million. This vest, made to replace the Interceptor vest in the Marine Corps, is heavier than the Interceptor, hard to put on, has a long list of needless additions that just boost the cost of it, and restricts moment. All this while offering roughly the same amount of protection as the Interceptor. In the end, this one really is an example of your TV analogy.
EDIT: One more thing I forgot, Jim. If budget is your concern, the XM8 would actually be cheaper in the long run. The XM8 is a modular design that can fill out different roles by just switching parts out. It can be a standard carbine, an ultra compact version for CQB and special forces, a light machine gun for the SAW role, and a sharpshooter version for the designated marksmen role. With the XM8, we could use just one rifle to cover four roles instead of having four (Or even more) different weapons to handle them all.
Thank you!
i think this is the problem with america. you use money on making better weapons but get under cut by red tape.
i recently heard that over 2000 new "DragonSkin" vests were shipped out to frontline forces, then got shipped all the way back and stored because of political BS.
same with the UK forces. a garrision in afganistan requested some high caliber sniper rifles to take out terrorists hiding in the town they were observing but got none as people complained that the money could be used else where. they got ambushed by taliban when moving through the town (thank god no one died) which could have easily been avoided by £9k worth of sniper rifle.
and i seriously wonder why the US forces havent adpoted the HK416. its more reliable than the M4, its easier to service than the M4 and is basically the same as the M4 so no training required. though the fact that its german might have something to do with it.
one used energy, the other used concentrated sound waves to make a "beam" of high volume sound.
bacchus2