Future soldier technology (modified thread)

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/darpa-moving-to-second-phase-of-squad-x.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/darpa-moving-to-second-phase-of-squad-x.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

Dismount survival is based on stealth. DARPA's UGV/UAV collocation language and depiction of short range, low altitude, noisy quad rotor are dead giveways. Emphasis on dead.

Even UGVs need enough range to disassociate w/ squad locations. Relays have been built tested to accomplish as much.

If real $ is to be spent on squads they should reach beyond 1k.
jokish
 
I find this really cool

http://kitup.military.com/2016/09/helmet-sync-imagery-jtacs-pilots.html?comp%3D7000029711048%26rank%3D2
 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23094/this-experimental-army-rifle-uses-telescoped-ammunition/

http://kitup.military.com/2016/09/textron-shows-off-new-6-5mm-case-telescoped-carbine.html?comp%3D7000029711048%26rank%3D0
 
On that last one, I really don't understand the logic of the caliber choice: "The 123 grain 6.5mm has a muzzle velocity of about 3,000 feet per second, Cole said." That's 2,458 ft-lb so almost identical to 7.62x51mm NATO (147 gr M80 FMJ X 2,733 fps = 2,437 ft-lb). What's he point of a "carbine" in a full-power rifle cartridge in this day and age? Are going back to the M-14 and FN FAL? Wasn't the whole point of the move to assault rifles (intermediate calibers) to get away from this?
 
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/articles/every-marine-a-pilot?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DNR%20EBB&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

quadrotors are artillery bait :-\
 
cluttonfred said:
On that last one, I really don't understand the logic of the caliber choice: "The 123 grain 6.5mm has a muzzle velocity of about 3,000 feet per second, Cole said." That's 2,458 ft-lb so almost identical to 7.62x51mm NATO (147 gr M80 FMJ X 2,733 fps = 2,437 ft-lb). What's he point of a "carbine" in a full-power rifle cartridge in this day and age? Are going back to the M-14 and FN FAL? Wasn't the whole point of the move to assault rifles (intermediate calibers) to get away from this?

It's about retained energy downrange. (from Ms. Kori Phillips' Armaments 2016 preso which is attached)
 

Attachments

  • 6.5mm-ct.png
    6.5mm-ct.png
    260.2 KB · Views: 127
  • 6.5mm-ct-ammo.png
    6.5mm-ct-ammo.png
    243.9 KB · Views: 125
  • 18325_Phillips.pdf
    883.4 KB · Views: 4
Thanks, marauder2048, and I can buy the rationale for an LMG or GPMG application, but. nobody is hitting anything with a carbine at 1200m, even 600m would be rare and exceptional.
 
This lightweight ammunition study/Development is still very much a work in progress, they're running down the various options. A lightweight carbine that sacrifices control/accuracy at full auto for long-range engagement ability normally only found on heavier sniper/DMR rifles may not be worth it in the end, but I have no problem with them building a few and finding out how it goes.
 
cluttonfred said:
Thanks, marauder2048, and I can buy the rationale for an LMG or GPMG application, but. nobody is hitting anything with a carbine at 1200m, even 600m would be rare and exceptional.

It harks back to the US fascination with and need to prove they are the descendants of the "Wild mountain men" of days of yore. Rather than using the weapons that should be used at such ranges (ie SFMG/GMG/Light Mortars/Medium Mortars/Artillery, the infantry feels that their weapon which was never designed to be fired at such ranges should be able to hit at those ranges. The M4 was designed for 100-200metres. The M16 300metres. The M14, 600metres, approximately. What they need, if they want to engage in long-range firefights is a sniper rifle for every soldier (and the training required to use it appropriately).

I find it interesting that only the US Army reports "problems" with a short barrelled M4 whereas all other Western armies with longer barrelled or bullpup weapons doesn't (and perhaps they use the appropriate weapon?).
 
Kadija_Man said:
cluttonfred said:
Thanks, marauder2048, and I can buy the rationale for an LMG or GPMG application, but. nobody is hitting anything with a carbine at 1200m, even 600m would be rare and exceptional.

It harks back to the US fascination with and need to prove they are the descendants of the "Wild mountain men" of days of yore. Rather than using the weapons that should be used at such ranges (ie SFMG/GMG/Light Mortars/Medium Mortars/Artillery, the infantry feels that their weapon which was never designed to be fired at such ranges should be able to hit at those ranges. The M4 was designed for 100-200metres. The M16 300metres. The M14, 600metres, approximately. What they need, if they want to engage in long-range firefights is a sniper rifle for every soldier (and the training required to use it appropriately).

I find it interesting that only the US Army reports "problems" with a short barrelled M4 whereas all other Western armies with longer barrelled or bullpup weapons doesn't (and perhaps they use the appropriate weapon?).
US next generation Mountain Man rifle?
 

Attachments

  • Boone.jpg
    Boone.jpg
    22.8 KB · Views: 244
bobbymike said:
Kadija_Man said:
cluttonfred said:
Thanks, marauder2048, and I can buy the rationale for an LMG or GPMG application, but. nobody is hitting anything with a carbine at 1200m, even 600m would be rare and exceptional.

It harks back to the US fascination with and need to prove they are the descendants of the "Wild mountain men" of days of yore. Rather than using the weapons that should be used at such ranges (ie SFMG/GMG/Light Mortars/Medium Mortars/Artillery, the infantry feels that their weapon which was never designed to be fired at such ranges should be able to hit at those ranges. The M4 was designed for 100-200metres. The M16 300metres. The M14, 600metres, approximately. What they need, if they want to engage in long-range firefights is a sniper rifle for every soldier (and the training required to use it appropriately).

I find it interesting that only the US Army reports "problems" with a short barrelled M4 whereas all other Western armies with longer barrelled or bullpup weapons doesn't (and perhaps they use the appropriate weapon?).
US next generation Mountain Man rifle?

Who knows. Perhaps this is a better image?

ft5_b__14428.1298364137.1280.1280.jpg
 
http://kitup.military.com/2016/09/beretta-shows-off-new-csass-7-62mm.html?comp%3D7000029711048%26rank%3D0

ARX200 "Mountain Man" ::)
 
Kadija_Man said:
cluttonfred said:
Thanks, marauder2048, and I can buy the rationale for an LMG or GPMG application, but. nobody is hitting anything with a carbine at 1200m, even 600m would be rare and exceptional.

It harks back to the US fascination with and need to prove they are the descendants of the "Wild mountain men" of days of yore. Rather than using the weapons that should be used at such ranges (ie SFMG/GMG/Light Mortars/Medium Mortars/Artillery, the infantry feels that their weapon which was never designed to be fired at such ranges should be able to hit at those ranges. The M4 was designed for 100-200metres.

SFMG/GMG carriers tend to be priority targets for enemy snipers. And while I'm hopeful that
guidance kits and scalable effects fills for mortars will enable a reduction in minimum
and danger close ranges I tend to think that the infantry half-mile+ will still be
decided by small arms.

The M4 was designed to hit targets out to 500m with the M855; with the new M855A1 round
and the proliferation of BDC optics operators are more regularly hitting out to those
ranges and beyond.

As sights continue to improve it's worth looking at the lethality and range improvements that can
be achieved within the package (weight, volume, length etc) constraints of a carbine.
 
marauder2048 said:
SFMG/GMG carriers tend to be priority targets for enemy snipers. And while I'm hopeful that
guidance kits and scalable effects fills for mortars will enable a reduction in minimum
and danger close ranges I tend to think that the infantry half-mile+ will still be
decided by small arms.

"half-mile"? You mean 800 metres? No service rifle fielded today is designed to hit anything at that range. 600 metres is for "area fire" only.

The M4 was designed to hit targets out to 500m with the M855; with the new M855A1 round
and the proliferation of BDC optics operators are more regularly hitting out to those
ranges and beyond.

With a 13 inch barrel? I am surprised. I have never understood the fascination for small barrel lengths on a service carbine/rifle. The L85 has a 646 mm (25.4 in) barrel. The Steyr F88 has a 508 mm (20.0 in) barrel. The bullpup is a very neat way of getting a longer barrel into a short weapon but the US Army and Americans in general seem to dislike the concept for some unfathomable reason. I'm reminded of the early 1960s claims about how "unnatural" a pistol grip was compared to a stock grip on the M14..

As sights continue to improve it's worth looking at the lethality and range improvements that can
be achieved within the package (weight, volume, length etc) constraints of a carbine.

Why a carbine, which is shorter and less powerful by design compared to a rifle?
 
Kadija_Man said:
"half-mile"? You mean 800 metres? No service rifle fielded today is designed to hit anything at that range.

That's the point of the current effort.


Kadija_Man said:
The bullpup is a very neat way of getting a longer barrel into a short weapon but the US Army and Americans in general seem to dislike the concept for some unfathomable reason.

Guess you'd find the recent UK Royal Marines, French and New Zealand rifle selections unfathomable as well.


Kadija_Man said:
Why a carbine, which is shorter and less powerful by design compared to a rifle?

Because everyone can carry one.
 
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
"half-mile"? You mean 800 metres? No service rifle fielded today is designed to hit anything at that range.

That's the point of the current effort.

And so, instead of using combined arms tactics, you end up equipping with a non-standard calibre, sub-standard barrel length weapon...

Kadija_Man said:
The bullpup is a very neat way of getting a longer barrel into a short weapon but the US Army and Americans in general seem to dislike the concept for some unfathomable reason.

Guess you'd find the recent UK Royal Marines, French and New Zealand rifle selections unfathomable as well.

Nope. Economy, The RM, French and New Zealand selections weren't based purely on capability...

Kadija_Man said:
Why a carbine, which is shorter and less powerful by design compared to a rifle?

Because everyone can carry one.

Ah, you mean you're suiting your service weapon to 50% of your population?
 
Kadija_Man said:
And so, instead of using combined arms tactics, you end up equipping with a non-standard calibre, sub-standard barrel length weapon...

Who says it will be a non-standard calibre? Who says you abandon combined arms? These are complete non-sequiturs.

The prototype carbine has a barrel length in between the M4 and the M16A4.

Kadija_Man said:
Nope. Economy, The RM, French and New Zealand selections weren't based purely on capability...

You mean like virtually every other military acquisition program ever?


Kadija_Man said:
Ah, you mean you're suiting your service weapon to 50% of your population?

And all of the crewmen, auxiliaries, spotters and crew served weapons operators etc. that
can't physically carry something heavier and bulkier.

At the end of the day, a higher volume of fire on target is known to produce good things.
 
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
And so, instead of using combined arms tactics, you end up equipping with a non-standard calibre, sub-standard barrel length weapon...

Who says it will be a non-standard calibre? Who says you abandon combined arms? These are complete non-sequiturs.

So, you're suggesting that a 200metre extension on the 5.56x45mm calibre is possible?

The prototype carbine has a barrel length in between the M4 and the M16A4.

Ah, an M4 rifle or an M4 carbine?

Kadija_Man said:
Nope. Economy, The RM, French and New Zealand selections weren't based purely on capability...

You mean like virtually every other military acquisition program ever?

Touche'! Economy should be only a factor, not the determining factor in acquisition. Otherwise you end up with a sub-standard weapon which results in soldiers being killed.

Kadija_Man said:
Ah, you mean you're suiting your service weapon to 50% of your population?

And all of the crewmen, auxiliaries, spotters and crew served weapons operators etc. that
can't physically carry something heavier and bulkier.

Then procure a carbine for those that need it and a rifle for those that don't. Making one weapon fit all means some will have a weapon with a far shorter barrel and less accuracy when they need it.

At the end of the day, a higher volume of fire on target is known to produce good things.

And it results in a far larger logistics tail which is required to provide that ammunition. It just doesn't appear out of thin air, you realise?
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/video/2016/10/03/the_best_gear_from_the_modern_day_marine_expo.html

X-247 has an internal AIM-9X in its' belly.
 
Kadija_Man said:
So, you're suggesting that a 200metre extension on the 5.56x45mm calibre is possible?

I'm suggesting that CT rounds could become standard calibre. Alternately, polymer but not case-telescoped rounds could supplant brass.


Kadija_Man said:
Ah, an M4 rifle or an M4 carbine?

Not sure I follow. There is no M4 rifle. The prototype 6.5mm Carbine has a 16 inch barrel.


Kadija_Man said:
Touche'! Economy should be only a factor, not the determining factor in acquisition. Otherwise you end up with a sub-standard weapon which results in soldiers being killed.

That might be a slight wrinkle for the CT effort; it's unclear who owns the CT, carbine and LMG designs.

Kadija_Man said:
Then procure a carbine for those that need it and a rifle for those that don't. Making one weapon fit all means some will have a weapon with a far shorter barrel and less accuracy when they need it.

Given the typical ratio of front-line to non front-line troops, those who need a carbine greatly outnumber those who don't. And the front-line troops will be carrying more things like XM25.


Kadija_Man said:
And it results in a far larger logistics tail which is required to provide that ammunition. It just doesn't appear out of thin air, you realise?

CT rounds make the logistics tail more managable given the reduced volume and weight for the same loadout.
 
marauder2048 said:
Kadija_Man said:
So, you're suggesting that a 200metre extension on the 5.56x45mm calibre is possible?

I'm suggesting that CT rounds could become standard calibre. Alternately, polymer but not case-telescoped rounds could supplant brass.

So, a complete change over then in your opinion?

What does that do to the installed base of 5.56x45mm calibre weapons, outside of the US? You do realise that the US is a part of various treaty organisations which it often deploys as a part of?

Kadija_Man said:
Ah, an M4 rifle or an M4 carbine?

Not sure I follow. There is no M4 rifle. The prototype 6.5mm Carbine has a 16 inch barrel.

There are different M4 barrel lengths. I have always assumed a "carbine" was a rifle with a shorter barrel and butt, whereas it seems the definition has changed in the US. A 16 inch (406mm) barrel is still shorter than an L85 or Steyr F88 barrel.

Kadija_Man said:
Touche'! Economy should be only a factor, not the determining factor in acquisition. Otherwise you end up with a sub-standard weapon which results in soldiers being killed.

That might be a slight wrinkle for the CT effort; it's unclear who owns the CT, carbine and LMG designs.

Design ownership is immaterial when governments are doing the talking.

Kadija_Man said:
Then procure a carbine for those that need it and a rifle for those that don't. Making one weapon fit all means some will have a weapon with a far shorter barrel and less accuracy when they need it.

Given the typical ratio of front-line to non front-line troops, those who need a carbine greatly outnumber those who don't. And the front-line troops will be carrying more things like XM25.

Obviously all the US Army's "front-line troops" (not that there is anything resembling a "line" in modern warfare) would it seems all be built like Gorillas, if they are all t carrying "things like the XM25"). Those who need a "carbine" versus those who require a "rifle" is a great deal less than you might believe.

Kadija_Man said:
And it results in a far larger logistics tail which is required to provide that ammunition. It just doesn't appear out of thin air, you realise?

CT rounds make the logistics tail more managable given the reduced volume and weight for the same loadout.

The number of rounds fired would remain the same. Your logistics burden would be reduced perhaps by 10%, by weight and volume compared to the non-use of CT rounds.
 
Kadija_Man said:
So, a complete change over then in your opinion?

What does that do to the installed base of 5.56x45mm calibre weapons, outside of the US? You do realise that the US is a part of various treaty organisations which it often deploys as a part of?

The same thing that happened when the installed base of 5.56x45mm calibre weapons outside of the US was shown to be incompatible with the M855A1. T


Kadija_Man said:
There are different M4 barrel lengths. I have always assumed a "carbine" was a rifle with a shorter barrel and butt, whereas it seems the definition has changed in the US. A 16 inch (406mm) barrel is still shorter than an L85 or Steyr F88 barrel.

I believe there is only one type qualified M4 barrel length. The L85 and F88 are not long for this world. For the former, the carbine version's barrel length is pretty close in to the prototype CT carbine.


Kadija_Man said:
Design ownership is immaterial when governments are doing the talking.

Not even remotely true for the US. If the government doesn't own the TDPs and MDPs it either has to purchase them or procure the design the OEM or license production.
Things are clearer post 2011 in terms of data rights ownership. But the CT effort predates this legislative change.

Kadija_Man said:
Obviously all the US Army's "front-line troops" (not that there is anything resembling a "line" in modern warfare) would it seems all be built like Gorillas, if they are all t carrying "things like the XM25"). Those who need a "carbine" versus those who require a "rifle" is a great deal less than you might believe.

I don't think the plural of 'anecdote' is 'data.'

Kadija_Man said:
The number of rounds fired would remain the same. Your logistics burden would be reduced perhaps by 10%, by weight and volume compared to the non-use of CT rounds.

Given the improved terminal effects at longer ranges I'm not sure your premise is valid and your estimate for reduced logistics burden does not square with the reported data.
 
http://www.usarmy4life.com/index.php/2016/09/01/bae-systems-launches-high-tech-iron-man-helmet/
 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23505/the-us-army-stabilized-weapons/
 
http://kitup.military.com/2016/10/army-soldier-power-energy-harvesting-device.html?ESRC=kitup.sm
 
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/10/27/60mm-mortar-enhanced-ordnance/
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/10/29/delta_force_and_seal_team_6_want_these_new_weapons_110277.html
 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/us-army-live-fire-testing-smart-gun.html
 
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/soldiers-test-provide-feedback-on-technology-in-new-army-exercise
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-army-testing-devastating-new-weapon-super-bazooka-18311
 
bobbymike said:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-army-testing-devastating-new-weapon-super-bazooka-18311

So it is the old Carl Gustaf. Hardly worthy of the article title...
 
GTX said:
bobbymike said:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-army-testing-devastating-new-weapon-super-bazooka-18311

So it is the old Carl Gustaf. Hardly worthy of the article title...

Nor the contents. I first fired a L35a1 Carl Gustav in 1978. The weapon is an excellent recoilless rifle, not a rocket launcher. It also has a range in excess of 1,000 metres.
 
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/microsofts-hololens-could-go-to-war
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-army-close-creating-lethal-super-soliders-18370
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/18/marine-corps-experimenting-new-service-rifle.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
 
The US and China are racing to create superior super soldiers SOFREP Original Content

By Jack Murphy 11.23.2016#Expert Analysis Email Share Tweet

Three years ago, SOFREP reported that the People’s Republic of China was conducting gene-doping experiments on their athletes and soldiers. Although it wasn’t mentioned, around this time JSOC was also conducting an experiment with gene doping that made operators stronger. Long frustrated by American laws and medical ethics, JSOC was able to find an exemption by citing operational needs. Most likely this was justified by pointing toward the similar experiments the Chinese have been doing for decades. Our sources indicated that the JSOC program was successful, more than doubling the strength of the few soldiers gene doping was tried on. The only way to test for proof of gene doping is via a muscle biopsy—not something that many guys would be keen to try. :-\

Today, the genetic arms race between China and the United States is becoming more clear to the public. Over the last few years the Chinese have been getting more aggressive. As they increase their power base, the Chinese are taking additional steps toward becoming an eventual global hegemon. We can see this in developments of their military technology, assertiveness in the South China Sea, military deployments to Africa, and a more forward-leaning approach to espionage. “No more grain of sand shit,” a former CIA officer recently told me in regards to Chinese espionage. The MSS and other Chinese intelligence services have become emboldened and more aggressive.

Speaking about new gene-editing technology being used by Chinese doctors to fight cancer, Professor Carl June said, “I think this is going to trigger ‘Sputnik 2.0’, a biomedical duel on progress between China and the United States, which is important since competition usually improves the end product.” CRISPR gene-editing technology is used to remove cells that are exploited by cancer, then these cells are cultured and injected back into the patient. A Sputnik-style space race turned genetics race could be a wonderful project for all of humanity when it comes to fighting cancer.

When it comes to military and economic strength, the arms race for nuclear weapons may be a more apt comparison than space exploration. With the People’s Republic of China engaged in a nation-wide eugenics project that sees the Han as the master race, the Chinese government’s domination of the genetics field, along with economics and military technology, would lead to a new global order that is somewhat less than democratic.

https://sofrep.com/68314/the-us-and-china-are-racing-to-create-superior-super-soldiers/
 
http://kitup.military.com/2016/11/wool-blend-uniform.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl

http://kitup.military.com/2016/11/future-combat-medicine-powdered-blood-spray-bottle-skin.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl

http://kitup.military.com/2016/11/compact-suppressor-ready-rifle.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl

http://kitup.military.com/2016/11/holographic-weapon-sight.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom