Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SP Community pls read & mobilize, M4 Debate
SCCOMarine    4/30/2007 2:44:21 PM
I came across this article at military.com. Its very interesting, it on how the military complex bows Special Interest at our expense. This is just one of many issues I've come across over the years but this one is the first that I'm going to personally get involved with. The reason why it BURNS ME UP is b/c they are dismissing the HK 416 and any other Rifle w/out even a competion to point out the short comings of the M4. This happens repeteatedly in the acquistions business, and they hope to keep it low level and out the press long enough to die out. Then they can move on and aquire a piece of sh*t w/out any fuss. I've sent an email giving my personal support in anyway needed to help out.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5
Horsesoldier       5/3/2007 10:28:50 AM


So my logic, for the Intelligent Impaired, is to allow for an open competition for the contract, B4 spending a billion on a rifle w/a flaw that the Company is only willing to fix if threatened w/the embarrassment of the result of a competition.  Something to which the SecArmy is doing his best to avoid B4 making the deal w/ Colt final.

I suppose it would be redundant to point out that the term you meant to use was Intelligence Impaired, right?  The article you, yourself, cited, quotes a couple figures -- $100 million or a total of $375 million.  Now, my math skills are not the sharpest, but even I can grasp that neither of these equals $1 billion dollars.  Not even added together (which is not the sense the article seems to be saying -- 375 mil total, to include 100 mil spent soonish).
 
 
Now why might that be?  Perhaps because that money is a supplemental buy of weapons already type standardized, tested, and approved for service?  Weapons that will only go to augment existing stocks of M4s and M16s?  Rather than, of course, what you want to see, which is either the whole stock of service rifles and carbines chucked out the window (despite being quite servicable and having years of life left in them), or some logistically-retarded and costly plan to have multiple parts and maintenance streams while some folks use Widget A and others use Widget B.  SOCOM can get away with that because it is small, agile, and lean compared to all the other services (even your own beloved, and bloated, Corps), but for the Big Army or the Big USMC to do the same thing would be a huge amount of weapons and a huge amount of $$$$.
 
That said, there are existing plans for soliciting a competition to replace the M16/M4 in the future (actually partly in place because HK tried to do an end run and sole source the contract with a new, un-type standardized, untested, and flawed design and DoD got sued about it . . .), and I don't see any issue with the HK 416 competing once we know what we want a new service rifle to bring to the table, and once we have the money sitting around available to be spent to thoroughly evaluate contenders and then implement fielding.  Personally, I see the 416, SCAR, and whatever else as probably being a waste -- again, 1980s era ACR test standards:  which one gives a 100% improvement in effectiveness over existing systems?  Otherwise you're just polishing up stagnant technology.  Put the billion dollars we could waste on HK 416s into developing CTA or caseless ammunition, or sorting out the OICW, or something that moves the technology forward and brings some real, significant advantage to the table.
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       5/3/2007 1:29:00 PM





So my logic, for the Intelligent Impaired, is to allow for an open competition for the contract, B4 spending a billion on a rifle w/a flaw that the Company is only willing to fix if threatened w/the embarrassment of the result of a competition.  Something to which the SecArmy is doing his best to avoid B4 making the deal w/ Colt final.



I suppose it would be redundant to point out that the term you meant to use was Intelligence Impaired, right?  The article you, yourself, cited, quotes a couple figures -- $100 million or a total of $375 million.  Now, my math skills are not the sharpest, but even I can grasp that neither of these equals $1 billion dollars.  Not even added together (which is not the sense the article seems to be saying -- 375 mil total, to include 100 mil spent soonish).

 

 

Now why might that be?  Perhaps because that money is a supplemental buy of weapons already type standardized, tested, and approved for service?  Weapons that will only go to augment existing stocks of M4s and M16s?  Rather than, of course, what you want to see, which is either the whole stock of service rifles and carbines chucked out the window (despite being quite servicable and having years of life left in them), or some logistically-retarded and costly plan to have multiple parts and maintenance streams while some folks use Widget A and others use Widget B.  SOCOM can get away with that because it is small, agile, and lean compared to all the other services (even your own beloved, and bloated, Corps), but for the Big Army or the Big USMC to do the same thing would be a huge amount of weapons and a huge amount of $$$$.

 

That said, there are existing plans for soliciting a competition to replace the M16/M4 in the future (actually partly in place because HK tried to do an end run and sole source the contract with a new, un-type standardized, untested, and flawed design and DoD got sued about it . . .), and I don't see any issue with the HK 416 competing once we know what we want a new service rifle to bring to the table, and once we have the money sitting around available to be spent to thoroughly evaluate contenders and then implement fielding.  Personally, I see the 416, SCAR, and whatever else as probably being a waste -- again, 1980s era ACR test standards:  which one gives a 100% improvement in effectiveness over existing systems?  Otherwise you're just polishing up stagnant technology.  Put the billion dollars we could waste on HK 416s into developing CTA or caseless ammunition, or sorting out the OICW, or something that moves the technology forward and brings some real, significant advantage to the table.



I used the term billion b/c that was the # being thrown around and I didn't feel like going back to check what the exact # was.  But your still arguing about semantics, talking about everything but the competition for the contract. The issue is over fair competition for the contract for new rifles. The money is already set aside.
 
"Put the billion dollars we could waste on HK 416s into developing CTA or caseless ammunition"  What are you talking about?  The money is going to new rifles for new BCTs, period. Its not that they have money set for M4s and they need extra money, that could go somewhere else, to buy something next gen.
 
No, the money is set for new BCTs to buy new rifles.  If you have 1 new BCT you need 5,000 new rifles, now whether that new rifle is the M4, HK, or one of the other 4 designs will be decided if the Senator can force an open competition.
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       5/3/2007 1:49:24 PM

Now why might that be?  Perhaps because that money is a supplemental buy of weapons already type standardized, tested, and approved for service?  Weapons that will only go to augment existing stocks of M4s and M16s?  Rather than, of course, what you want to see, which is either the whole stock of service rifles and carbines chucked out the window (despite being quite servicable and having years of life left in them), or some logistically-retarded and costly plan to have multiple parts and maintenance streams while some folks use Widget A and others use Widget B. 

No one is chucking anything.  The BCTs w/M4s will retain their M4s throughout their service life, which in combat is about 5-7yrs.  The BCTs that are planned to come on line over the next 10yrs, about 65,000 new soldiers worth, will receive the rifle judge the best in the open contract competition.  The money is already set aside for this.
 
By your logic, "Hey why buy the Stryker, its just another piece of gear to tie down the supply line w/ all of their new wheel and parts; why change flak jackets, you'll just get shot in the leg; why add rifle optics or rail systems, infantry aren't Spec Ops; why change BTUs; why install the Blue Force tracker, we've been have Blue on Blue deaths for millenia; why do any of these things they are all too new and they'll just bog down the system, right?"
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       5/3/2007 1:59:17 PM

SOCOM can get away with that because it is small, agile, and lean compared to all the other services (even your own beloved, and bloated, Corps), but for the Big Army or the Big USMC to do the same thing would be a huge amount of weapons and a huge amount of $$$$.



The Corps tested the M4 in '03 and found that it had too many problems to issue Corps wide it to its infantry units, deciding instead to wait until other services moved to a better system and join in for a joint purchase. But in the mean time they needed a rail system, so they opted for the M16 A4 as an Interim weapon.
 
Many military analyst thought that when the MC agreed to join SOCOM the major factor was an agreement to merge equipment acquistion projects.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/3/2007 2:12:31 PM
I used the term billion b/c that was the # being thrown around and I didn't feel like going back to check what the exact # was.  But your still arguing about semantics, talking about everything but the competition for the contract. The issue is over fair competition for the contract for new rifles. The money is already set aside.

A $900 million dollar is a semantic discrepancy?  Again, you underwhelm with astonishing skill.
 
You clearly do not have any understanding of what you are discussing at all.  First of all, there is no "competition" for supplemental purchases of already type-standardized equipment because procurement of new equipment and purchases of additional, already tested and adopted equipment, are completely different animals.  I assume your lack of education on this matter is why you think the two are somehow the same.  They are certainly not the same thing, as entirely new equipment means throwing away money on existing stocks of spare parts, money spent retraining armorers or other maintainers on maintenance procedures, etc., which your "it's just so simple" model of understanding the issue completely misses.
 
By your logic, anytime we want to buy more 5.56mm ammunition we should first have an open competition and spend millions of dollars to determine if there is a better caliber of ammunition we could use.  Also, next time the military wants to buy some JP-8 or other fuel we need to have a multi-million dollar competition to see if some company has a superior formulation of diesel or jet fuel.  Same basic premise.  And equally silly.
 
"Put the billion dollars we could waste on HK 416s into developing CTA or caseless ammunition"  What are you talking about?  The money is going to new rifles for new BCTs, period. Its not that they have money set for M4s and they need extra money, that could go somewhere else, to buy something next gen.
 
Again, you are mistaken and completely off base.  The $Billion USD figure is to re-equip US forces with the HK 416 -- a new equipment buy that involves new spare parts, new weapons, product testing, etc.  It is not the cost of continuing to use the M4/M16 family, which your own damn article (which apparently you lack the reading skills to understand) sets at $650 million dollars less, maybe even as much as $900 million less, depending on how much more wear and tear we're talking about in the current war. 
 
It is not a one-or-the-other, "they both cost the same" issue at all, though you seem unable to grasp this.
 
No, the money is set for new BCTs to buy new rifles.  If you have 1 new BCT you need 5,000 new rifles, now whether that new rifle is the M4, HK, or one of the other 4 designs will be decided if the Senator can force an open competition.
 
Which probably makes even less economic sense, since now you're proposing two alternate standard issue weapons, each requiring its own spares and maintenance streams to support it.  Economically and logistically this is what tends to be referred to as the worst of both worlds.
 
Look, end of the day, you just seem to be way out of your depth in understanding any of the issues involved in this debate.  I'd recommend a high school economics class as a good starting point to bring some real knowledge to the table.  I'm surprised a supposed Marine -- you know, the thriftiest and most money concious of the services and all that -- just can't begin to understand that Uncle Sugar is not a bottomless money pit. 
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/3/2007 2:25:10 PM
By your logic, "Hey why buy the Stryker, its just another piece of gear to tie down the supply line w/ all of their new wheel and parts; why change flak jackets, you'll just get shot in the leg; why add rifle optics or rail systems, infantry aren't Spec Ops; why change BTUs; why install the Blue Force tracker, we've been have Blue on Blue deaths for millenia; why do any of these things they are all too new and they'll just bog down the system, right?"

Um, no, actually it is not at all similar.  Again, I'm sorry but you seem to just not understand what you are talking about.  To summarize:
HK 416:  Replicates function of an existing piece of equipment (M16/M4 rilfles and carbines), with some improved reliability that is of marginal relevance given the mean rounds between failure for either the M16/M4 and HK 416 versus actual combat conditions (again, who goes 5000 rounds, much less 15K, without cleaning?).
 
Your "similar" examples:
 
Stryker:  Bridges the gap between light infantry and heavy/mech infantry.  Infantry-centric MTOE with high mobility and situational awareness.  System and units using it tailored for low to mid-intensity conflict in under-developed countries.  In other words:  something new and beneficial.
 
Improved Body Armor:  Most current reductions involve decreases in weight for same effective protection (or greater protection).  Some changes involve improved ergonomics, or increased area of protection.  The mobility of the soldier when carrying full kit is a constant issue, not something that only crops up after firing almost 24 basic loads of ammunition through a weapon without cleaning it.  In other words:  improvement that matters.
 
Expanded Use of Optics and Rails on Weapons:  Use of optics increases lethality in engagements as a constant.  Allows use of night vision or thermal optics, or use of IR laser aiming units compatible with NVGs.  Allows faster acquisition (optics) and handling of weapon (rails with forward grip) during combat.  Generally increases the overall effectiveness of the troop so equipped across the board.  In other words:  improvement that matters.
 
"[W]hy change BTUs":  No idea what British Thermal Units have to do with anything in this discussion.
 
Blue Force Tracker:  Decreases risk of fratricide, increases situational awareness for commanders dramatically.  In other words:  something new and beneficial.

So, anyway, it seems like you can't understand the difference between a shelling out tons of money on a change that is of no real relevance to troops in the real world, and those that provide real benefit.  In so doing, you're completely missing the point (a common thread here in your contributions to this discussion) -- finite resources, why waste them on fixing things that aren't broken?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/3/2007 2:32:23 PM

The Corps tested the M4 in '03 and found that it had too many problems to issue Corps wide it to its infantry units, deciding instead to wait until other services moved to a better system and join in for a joint purchase. But in the mean time they needed a rail system, so they opted for the M16 A4 as an Interim weapon.
 

Many military analyst thought that when the MC agreed to join SOCOM the major factor was an agreement to merge equipment acquistion projects.

Right.  You're simply illustrating my point.  The USMC recognized the economic and logistic nonfeasibility of jumping on every new development to come down the pipeline (plus how hard it would be to teach obsolete NRA style shooting and do D&C with an optimized combat weapon like an M4), so they opted to go with a known system modified as needed to maintain currency, while waiting on a real improvement.  Not unlike how the US Army is purchasing more M4s (known, standardized system) instead of jumping on whatever the newest and loudest bandwagon is. 
 
I'm interested to know if you were whimpering about an open competition to "fairly" select a new rifle when the USMC opted for the M16A4.  Just curious. 
 
Quote    Reply

TRex       5/7/2007 4:23:28 PM
I believe that the former post of BTU was supposed to be BDU...I don't know.
 
But as far as the M4 goes, it gets the job done, but HAS been the cause of a few soldier's deaths (due to jamming). It is my opinion that we shouldn't settle for "gets the job done" but use equipment that "gets the job done well." I believe that the HK416 suits that billet and numerous operators will agree with that statement.
 
That's my two cents.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics