Why US military seems to favors that arsenals?

I wonder why US Military seems favors those arsenals: M4A1 Carbine, M249 SAW, FGM-148 Javelin, Barrett M107, XM-25 Grenade Launchers(why this gun is the only ones from OICW project that int canceled?), NLOS-type Indirect fire support platform, Stryker MGS(as the only light tank that US Army ever accepted in more recent times), F-35 JSF, AH-64D Longbow Helicopter, V-22 Osprey, and so on over anything else like canceled US Arsenals(such as XM8 and Comanche Helicopter) and so on like HK416(this is just another variant of M4 carbine that surprisingly lot better and lot more awesome than M4A1) and more decent arsenals(IMO) of US military which can be better, more awesome, and (sometimes) more practical?

reply to post by masonicon


For the most part, contracts are awarded due to price & politics. In your military experience, what makes you say that the HK416 is "more awesome" than an M4? Its essentially a piston driven M4, if anything it would make more sense for the military to retrofit current issue M4's and A3's if they wanted to go that route , same thing with the SCAR or Bushy/Masada ACR. At the end of the day, our weapons are made by the lowest bidder & you work with what's issued. The only time you will see other weapons in the field is during testing, or with HSLD operators whose loadouts are mission specific.

current m4s can be converted to hk416 just by dropping hk upper onto m4 lower base cost 800 dollars

reply to post by masonicon


With regards to the Comanche Helicopter.

My son and I went to the Edwards air force base airshow back in either 98 or 99 [I forget which] and they had a Comanche prototype on display. We asked about it [It looked awesome] and one of the pilots standing there said for my son and I not to get our hopes up. He mentioned it was just a testbed project and would never see any real service life.

This was 5 to 6 years before they officially canceled the program. Since then I've always wondered about the project.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by masonicon

 

With regards to the Comanche Helicopter.

My son and I went to the Edwards air force base airshow back in either 98 or 99 [I forget which] and they had a Comanche prototype on display. We asked about it [It looked awesome] and one of the pilots standing there said for my son and I not to get our hopes up. He mentioned it was just a testbed project and would never see any real service life.

This was 5 to 6 years before they officially canceled the program. Since then I've always wondered about the project.

so why US army Cancels Comanche in favor of UAVs where despite this, those UAVs may spent more money than Comanche project?

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by masonicon

 

For the most part, contracts are awarded due to price & politics. In your military experience, what makes you say that the HK416 is "more awesome" than an M4? Its essentially a piston driven M4, if anything it would make more sense for the military to retrofit current issue M4's and A3's if they wanted to go that route , same thing with the SCAR or Bushy/Masada ACR. At the end of the day, our weapons are made by the lowest bidder & you work with what's issued. The only time you will see other weapons in the field is during testing, or with HSLD operators whose loadouts are mission specific.

why when it comes to Infantry weapons, US army are seems to prefers M4A1 Carbine, M249 SAW, FGM-148 Javelin, Barrett M107 .50cal sniper rifle, and XM-25 Grenade Launchers(why this gun is the only ones from OICW project that isn't canceled?) over anything else?

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by masonicon

 

For the most part, contracts are awarded due to price & politics. In your military experience, what makes you say that the HK416 is "more awesome" than an M4? Its essentially a piston driven M4, if anything it would make more sense for the military to retrofit current issue M4's and A3's if they wanted to go that route , same thing with the SCAR or Bushy/Masada ACR. At the end of the day, our weapons are made by the lowest bidder & you work with what's issued. The only time you will see other weapons in the field is during testing, or with HSLD operators whose loadouts are mission specific.

why when it comes to Infantry weapons, US army are seems to prefers M4A1 Carbine, M249 SAW, FGM-148 Javelin, Barrett M107 .50cal sniper rifle, and XM-25 Grenade Launchers(why this gun is the only ones from OICW project that isn't canceled?) over anything else?

edit on 10/2/2011 by masonicon because: changing int into isn't

Why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over again?

And really, I wonder why American soldiers are usually equipped with American weapons. If they used anything other than brand-new expensive weaponry then the whole American free-market military industry would be underminded.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by masonicon

 

For the most part, contracts are awarded due to price & politics. In your military experience, what makes you say that the HK416 is "more awesome" than an M4? Its essentially a piston driven M4, if anything it would make more sense for the military to retrofit current issue M4's and A3's if they wanted to go that route , same thing with the SCAR or Bushy/Masada ACR. At the end of the day, our weapons are made by the lowest bidder & you work with what's issued. The only time you will see other weapons in the field is during testing, or with HSLD operators whose loadouts are mission specific.

why when it comes to Infantry weapons, US army are seems to prefers M4A1 Carbine, M249 SAW, FGM-148 Javelin, Barrett M107 .50cal sniper rifle, and XM-25 Grenade Launchers(why this gun is the only ones from OICW project that isn't canceled?) over anything else?

edit on 10/2/2011 by masonicon because: changing int into isn't

Why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over again?

because that combination of weapon are probably the least favorite for mine and yet many people thinks that combination of weapons are the best combination of weapons ever where XM-25 Grenade Launchers forces enemies to leaves their covers to be sniped by Barret M107 .50cal Sniper Rifles, FGM-148 Javelin will makes short works of Armored Vehicles, M249 SAW will lay suppressive fire, and M4A1 Carbine is for compensating the specialization of these weapons as Barret M107 .50cal Sniper Rifles, FGM-148 Javelin, and XM-25 Smart Grenade Launchers alone without M249 SAW and M4A1 are still far from Unstoppable

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by masonicon

 

For the most part, contracts are awarded due to price & politics. In your military experience, what makes you say that the HK416 is "more awesome" than an M4? Its essentially a piston driven M4, if anything it would make more sense for the military to retrofit current issue M4's and A3's if they wanted to go that route , same thing with the SCAR or Bushy/Masada ACR. At the end of the day, our weapons are made by the lowest bidder & you work with what's issued. The only time you will see other weapons in the field is during testing, or with HSLD operators whose loadouts are mission specific.

why when it comes to Infantry weapons, US army are seems to prefers M4A1 Carbine, M249 SAW, FGM-148 Javelin, Barrett M107 .50cal sniper rifle, and XM-25 Grenade Launchers(why this gun is the only ones from OICW project that isn't canceled?) over anything else?

edit on 10/2/2011 by masonicon because: changing int into isn't

Why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over again?

because that combination of weapon are probably the least favorite for mine and yet many people thinks that combination of weapons are the best combination of weapons ever where XM-25 Grenade Launchers forces enemies to leaves their covers to be sniped by Barret M107 .50cal Sniper Rifles, FGM-148 Javelin will makes short works of Armored Vehicles, M249 SAW will lay suppressive fire, and M4A1 Carbine is for compensating the specialization of these weapons as Barret M107 .50cal Sniper Rifles, FGM-148 Javelin, and XM-25 Smart Grenade Launchers alone without M249 SAW and M4A1 are still far from Unstoppable

edit on 10/2/2011 by masonicon because: adding wrd alone

I would very much like to see photo evidence of a regular US military team being equipped with all of these weapons. Not only are they expensive and heavy, but are also high-maintenance. The Javelin alone requires at least one two-man team to operate.

I'm not saying that these weapons aren't used though, but not all together in the same squad. On a typical American army squad level, you'll probably see M16/M4 variants with M203s, M72s, and M249s. From observing anti-material rifle use in a few armies, US probably has similar tactics in deploying one or two man teams armed with M107s. Javelins are operated in a similar manner, especially since a Javelin can intercept both enemy armor and tactical aircraft (like choppers).

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by masonicon

Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by masonicon

 

For the most part, contracts are awarded due to price & politics. In your military experience, what makes you say that the HK416 is "more awesome" than an M4? Its essentially a piston driven M4, if anything it would make more sense for the military to retrofit current issue M4's and A3's if they wanted to go that route , same thing with the SCAR or Bushy/Masada ACR. At the end of the day, our weapons are made by the lowest bidder & you work with what's issued. The only time you will see other weapons in the field is during testing, or with HSLD operators whose loadouts are mission specific.

why when it comes to Infantry weapons, US army are seems to prefers M4A1 Carbine, M249 SAW, FGM-148 Javelin, Barrett M107 .50cal sniper rifle, and XM-25 Grenade Launchers(why this gun is the only ones from OICW project that isn't canceled?) over anything else?

edit on 10/2/2011 by masonicon because: changing int into isn't

Why do you keep posting the same stuff over and over again?

because that combination of weapon are probably the least favorite for mine and yet many people thinks that combination of weapons are the best combination of weapons ever where XM-25 Grenade Launchers forces enemies to leaves their covers to be sniped by Barret M107 .50cal Sniper Rifles, FGM-148 Javelin will makes short works of Armored Vehicles, M249 SAW will lay suppressive fire, and M4A1 Carbine is for compensating the specialization of these weapons as Barret M107 .50cal Sniper Rifles, FGM-148 Javelin, and XM-25 Smart Grenade Launchers alone without M249 SAW and M4A1 are still far from Unstoppable

edit on 10/2/2011 by masonicon because: adding wrd alone

I would very much like to see photo evidence of a regular US military team being equipped with all of these weapons. Not only are they expensive and heavy, but are also high-maintenance. The Javelin alone requires at least one two-man team to operate.

I'm not saying that these weapons aren't used though, but not all together in the same squad. On a typical American army squad level, you'll probably see M16/M4 variants with M203s, M72s, and M249s. From observing anti-material rifle use in a few armies, US probably has similar tactics in deploying one or two man teams armed with M107s. Javelins are operated in a similar manner, especially since a Javelin can intercept both enemy armor and tactical aircraft (like choppers).

expect us Army will uses the combination of weapons that you replied here at least not in a typical US Army Squad level