Category: Defense Procurement

M4/M16 Problems

One of the things that I did not cover in my discussion of the firefight at Camp Keating was the performance of the weapons there.

Specifically, it appears that the M4s carbines and M249 “Minimi” SAWs started to fail over the course of the fight.

There are a number of links, but this release a draft report from the Combat Studies Institute seems to be the most definitive. (you can see other accounts , here, here, here, and here.

The big issue here is that there are reports of both the M4 and M249 failing as the engagement went forward.

Since both weapons were failing, with one (M4) having a short stroke gas-tube operation, and the other (M249) having a long stroke piston, it’s pretty clear that the method of operation of these weapons are directly responsible for these failures.

Here is what I think is the pertinent quote:

Stafford crawled back up to the protection of the southern post of the OP, where he watched Specialist Bogar put up a heroic defense, nearly single-handedly, with his SAW. Bogar placed it on top of the sandbags, notwithstanding as Stafford noted, “I’m just watching that boulder pop with rounds coming in.” Stafford was badly wounded and drifting in and out of consciousness, but he distinctly remembered, “Bogar had just set his SAW on top of the sandbags and he was just kind of spraying, going through SAW rounds pretty quick. I remember him, loading and spraying, loading and spraying.” At the Crow’s Nest, Specialist Ayers was also going cyclic with the M-240. Stafford also remembered being impressed at the volume of fire that Ayers was pouring out, “I could also hear the 240 going off above me in the Crow’s Nest, because Ayers was just ripping them apart. I could hear Rainey screaming at Ayers not to melt the barrel on the 240 and to control his fires.”

Specialist Bogar fired approximately six hundred rounds at a cyclic rate of fire from his SAW when that weapon became overheated, and eventually jammed the bolt forward. Specialist Stafford noted, “Bogar was still in our hole firing quite a bit. Then Bogar’s SAW jammed. Basically it just got way overheated, because he opened the feed tray cover and I remember him trying to get it open and it just looked like the bolt had welded itself inside the chamber. His barrel was just white hot.”

(emphasis mine)

While I think that “White Hot” is probably an exaggeration, I would think that weapons would fail with the barrel still “cherry” hot, but it appears that there was a lot of shooting going on and the weapons were getting very hot as a result, at which point things like cook-off of rounds, expansion of parts, etc. begin to be a factor.

I will note that the M249 is a weapon that fires from an open bolt, which means that you have to be pumping a lot of rounds down range to get it that hot, so fire discipline, as alluded to in exchange above regarding the M240, a 7.62mm belt machine gun that is essentially the M249’s big brother.

This may have been a situation where the weapons were simply fired beyond their design capabilities.

Part of the reason for this is that the weapons used by both had similar effective ranges.

The AK-47, because of its relative lack of accuracy, is really not effective beyond 200m, particularly in the hands of a typical insurgent, and the M4, with its short (14½”) barrel and relatively light round, lacks lethality beyond that range.

The M16, by contrast, with its longer barrel, would be able to place effective fire on the enemy at more than 300m.

Had the soldiers been using the M16, they would have been able to engage the enemy before the enemy could engage them, and it is not entirely clear to me (please, someone educate me) why the troops were issued a carbine in a non-urban area where engagement distances would likely be longer.

Additionally, it appears that the position was located primarily due to non-combat considerations, which made it less defensible than it should have been.

All of these contributed to a very intense firefight, and it appears that the intensity of the combat was a significant cause as to the failures of these weapons.

Simply put, a personal weapon, or a squad automatic weapon, are not designed to throw that many rounds down range in that short a time.

One question that is not addressed in this report, at least not in this early draft of the report, is whether fire discipline was maintained, or if the troops were reverting to “spray and pray”.

My guess is that fire discipline was maintained, at least to the degree that discipline is possible when you are being attacked by a heavily armed force that outnumbers you, but I have no direct military or combat experience to evaluate this.

That being said, I think that the M4 should be replaced. Most of the other modern western armies, the Germans excepted, have switched to a Bullpup design, and as such, they have longer barrels, and shorter overall lengths than the M4.

See the table below for a comparison:

Weapon Barrel Length Overall Length
M4 14.5 in 29.8 in (stock retracted)
Tavor T.A.R-21 18.1 in 28.5 in

Additionally, while there are advantages to gas tube operation, generally lighter weight and better accuracy because there are fewer moving parts, one consistent complaint about the AR-15 and its children is that the weapons require meticulous, almost obsessive cleaning.

I admire the breakthroughs that Eugene Stoner made when he created the weapon, and many of those innovations, the use of plastics and high-strength lightweight alloys, continue today, but I think that the use of the gas tube has been shown to be problematic.

That being said, I would favor moving to a new weapon, as opposed to something like the gas piston retrofit, as the existing weapon has problems that are inherent in the design (i.e. barrel length and overall length).

In my perfect world, the Army and Marines would purchase one of the Bullpups already in service, as opposed to developing a new weapon itself, but given the nature of defense procurement in the US, particularly the Army Ordinance’s rather parochial view towards foreign weapons, I think that this unlikely.

Note: I have never served, and I’ve never shot anything more substantial than a .22 short rifle for in a riflery class in summer camp, so if I am wrong, please tell me in the comments.

All I ask is some detail. Don’t tell me I’m an idiot, show me that I’m an idiot.

U.S. Looking at Israeli Iron Fist APS

Click for full size


From Wiki

It looks like the US military is far less sanguine over Raytheon’s Active Protection System (APS), Quick Kill, because the military folks at the AUSA convention were all over the Israeli Iron Fist APS, made by Rafael.

It is similar to, but appears to be a somewhat more capable system than the other Israeli APS, IMI’s Trophy system, in that it can engage KE rounds as well as ATGMs and RPGs.

The concept is somewhat different than both Raytheon’s and IMI’s, with the blast intended to take out incoming missiles and sabot darts, as opposed to shot, which means that the sabot is not actually destroyed, but made to yaw prior to impact, which would reduce penetration.

When one considers that the Israeli standard infantry fighting vehicle is the Namer, which is based on the Merkava chassis, and weighs in at 60T, as versus 40T for the Bradley, the 20T Stryker, and the 20-30T FCS replacement, it may be of somewhat more limited utility.

A sabot yawing 15° or so off the normal may not prevent penetration of the thinner armor, but on the plus side, using of a non-fragmenting charge means that the potential to injure troops operating closely to the vehicle is significantly reduced.

Background here, here, and here.

GD Pitches Stryker for FCS Replacement

I think that the idea of an upgraded an uparmored Stryker to replace the now-canceled FCS is a very bad idea.

The problem is that Strykers, which now tip the scales at less than 25 tons when extra armor is added on, but it looks like an upgraded Stryker would weigh somewhere between 30 and 35 tons, and when considering that the original vehicle, the LAV, weighed about 15 tons, I think that it would be just too heavy.

Simply replacing the manned turret on the Bradley IFV with an unmanned one, and using the space that is opened up for more troops gets you there, and there is probably some space left over for the communications gear that was developed along with the FCS.

Swiss to Hold Referendum on Banning Arms Export

For people who don’t follow history, the idea that the Swiss would ban arms exports seems to have little significance, but this is wrong, both historically today.

Swiss neutrality was a product of the fact that their main export from the 15th century or so was Swiss Mercenaries, the finest pikemen in Christendom, and so one of the motivations for neutrality was the ability to sell their services without regard to any alliances at home.

These days, of course, the Swiss are still in the war business:

  • MOWAG, whose Pirinah 8X8 AFV being the basis of both the Marine Corps LAV and the Army’s Stryker.
  • Oerlikon Contraves and its light cannon.
  • Wenger S.A. and Victorinox A.G., producers of the “Swiss Army Knife” (shown)

Though the last one would likely not be covered by such a ban.

In any case, it goes to Swiss voters on November 30, and is a part of an overall campaign by GSoA (Group for a Switzerland Without an Army) to demilitarize the nation.

Saab’s South Korea Offices Raided in Bribery Investigation

It looks like its related to the ROK’s KF-X program, which is supposed to, at some point in the distant indeterminate future, yield a home grown fighter aircraft.

It appears that Saab was looking into partnerships on the program, and may, or may not, have paid off an official for technical data to help with a bid:

Saab acknowledged that its South Korean premises had been “inspected” last month but denied any wrongdoing and said it was co-operating with the investigation. SMI acknowledged their offices had been searched but declined to comment on the investigation.

Saab said the company had paid SKr120,000 to SMI to sponsor a seminar by its chief executive at a Swedish trade fair last March. But Saab had no ongoing relationship with SMI and had never paid the company for information on the KF-X, it added.

Not sure what’s going on, but I think that Saab is pretty desperate to get some revenue out of its investment in the Gripen.

F136 Alternate JSF Engine Update

So, the House-Senate Conference Committee agreed to fund the F136 alternate engine for the JSF, despite a qualified veto threat from the White House.

By qualified, I mean that “sources in the WH” have said that they would “recommend a veto,” if the engine were funded, which is quite different from the flat out statement that Obama would veto anything with the F-22 white elephant Raptor.

While the weak veto threat is one of the reasons that supporters of the alternate engine have gained momentum, there is also the fact that Pratt & Whitney is doing back-flips on cost and schedule in order to try to kill the RR/GE F136 engine, which reinforces the idea that they see a real threat their profit model for the F135 engine.

Additionally, the idea that the program managers can squeeze P&W just as hard if there is no competitor out in the wings is plainly ludicrous, and the F100/F110 “engine war” of the 1980s clearly shows that.

The reason that the DoD is fighting the alternate engine at this point, is because they really want the JSF, and even a small amount of money, even if it pays ten fold dividends further out, may push the JSF further down the delay/cost escalation/procurement cuts cycle.

Ashton Carter* pretty much says that flat out when he says that, “The crux of the analysis is that the additional upfront costs of a second engine are very clear and very real and the possible savings associated with a hypothesized competition in the future are much harder to estimate.”

That being said, the development of the F-136 is not going perfectly. The manufacturers just had to halt testing following the discovery of damage to the turbine, described as “nicks and dings”.

End of Stealth?

Click for full size


Bistatic Radar


Typical RCS

So, Joint Force Quarterly has an article on the end of stealth (PDF link for article)

Certainly, the air forces of the world have been trying to make Giulio Douhet’s vision of strategic bombing vision reality for many years, and stealth technology had the potential of reducing the costs of striking a target to something approaching the Italian general’s original vision.

Of course, even in the case of air supremacy over the target, WWII over Germany and Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and both Iraq wars, it turns out that air power, at least without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has been an abject failure at winning wars.

While I do agree with the basic thesis of the article, that improvements in processing technology, particularly in processing power available in compact packages,which allow for intermittent signals from disparate platforms to be fused into a coherent picture.

The author Arend Westra, places a high degree of value on what he calls “bistatic’ and “passive” radars, where the receiver is well removed from the transmitter, and, in some cases, the transmitter is something like a civilian TV or radio facility.

I am far more dubious of the capabilities of such systems for a number of reasons:

  • They have multiple points of failure.
  • For the United States in particular, civilian broadcasting infrastructure, because of its ability to transmit civil defense instructions and “enemy propaganda”, these are considered militarily significant infrastructure whose locations are well known, and are hit early in any war.
    • As an interesting philosophical aside, by the standards of the United States, the World Trade Center towers were legitimate military targets, because they were festooned with civilian radio and television transmitters.
  • I think that using processing will be cheaper than new technology.

This is not to say that I think that these sorts of systems won’t be deployed, as there is already an existing civilian infrastructure to piggyback on, but that they will be a part, and for anyone with half a brain a small part of a total system.

I think that as we move to the future, that any sort of strike package heading into an integrated air defense system will do with the Israelis did, where the idea of somehow blocking or flooding the network used to integrate the various sensors will become the most significant part of any mission planning.

I think that the biggest impact will be in the arms market, where nations concerned about air attacks may very turn toward increasingly sophisticated Russian air defense systems.

Tanker Tango Update

Yeah, like that really worked well.

Well, we have two bits of information, one technical, that Boeing is seriously considering submitting both 767 and 777 proposals for its KCX bid (s):

A lot of the defense press was puzzled by Boeing’s statement last week after the release of the draft RFP. “Our next step is to conduct a detailed review of the document. We want to understand how requirements will be defined and prioritized and how the proposals will be evaluated. That information will help us decide which plane to offer or whether to offer both planes. We appreciate that there will be frequent, open discussion with the U.S. Air Force as we go forward. Both the Air Force and the American taxpayer will benefit from the tanker options we can offer. Boeing has a KC-7A7 ‘family of tankers’ available to meet the warfighter’s requirements. Whether it’s the agile, flexible 767-based tanker or the large 777-based tanker, Boeing will deliver a combat-ready tanker with maximum capability at the lowest cost.”

I don’t know if they will submit both aircraft, but my guess is that any new proposal for the 767 will involve a variant that has already been produced, perhaps either Japan’s or Italys, as opposed to the “767-200 fuselage, a -300 wing and a -400 cockpit,” variant that they proposed last time around.

My guess is also that they will back off on their “super” refueling boom, which has still not flown.

I think that any 777 proposal would have to involve a shortened fuselage, because they are looking at a medium tanker proposal, and the 777 is otherwise too big.

On the other end of the bid, Northrop Grumman/EADS is concerned that Boeing received proprietary price data on their bid when they filed the challenge, which will give Boeing an advantage in the next course of bidding. (also here and (here)

And then there is what effect, if any, there is on this process of Airbus losing the WTO ruling on subsidies, and how this might alter the bid process.

Potential Successor to NLOS Cannon Shown

Click for ginormous picture


Looks like the Son of MLRS

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) is showing its Donar 155 mm howitzer at the AUSA convention.

Based on a cursory read of Bill Sweetman’s blog post, and my knowledge of MLRS, I spent some time crawling over the vehicles when I was at Lockheed-Martin Missiles & Fire Control* in Grand Prairie, TX, it looks to me an awful lot like they modified the platform and chassis of the M270 MLRS, replacing the turret for the rockets with a (one would assume significantly beefed up to handle recoil) howitzer turret.

Of note, since the automated turret and loading systems are completely removed from the crewed area, there appears to be a significant reduction in weight, since the turret does not need the same level of armor if it is not in crewed space.

Additionally, there should be some cost savings involved in using an existing platform.

On the downside, as compared to the now defunct NLOS-C, this is never going to fit in a C-130, though it KMW is claiming that it will fit in an EADS A-400.

*Yeah, I worked there too. I didn’t work on MLRS, but on a British derivative, the LIMAWS-R, which required me to look at the vehicles regularly.

BAE Bribery Investigation Back On

It appears that elections make a difference, so a desperate Gordon Brown is allow investigations to proceed regarding potential bribery in, “Tanzania, South Africa, Romania and the Czech Republic,” but nothing involving Saudi Prince Bandar and the House of Saud, whose bribery levels are probably 10 times higher than the other 4 nations combined.

It would be nice if the west stopped coddling the House of Saud, which is a cesspool of corruption, greed, and terrorism.

These Things go Together

Click for full size


Aermacchi’s M-346


Korea Aerospace Industries T-50

First, we have South Korea selecting the Israel Aerospace Industries/Elta Systems EL/M-2032 radar for its combat version of its A/T-50 trainer, and now Israel eyes has the T-50 on its short list, along with the M-346, as a replacement for its A-4 Skyhawk advanced trainer.

Funny how that works out.

If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on the T-50.

In either case, I feel a great affection for the A-4 “Scooter.”

USAF adds IRST to F-15s

They will be using a variant of the ANS-42 Ifra-Red Search and Track system originally deployed on the F-14D (replacing the TCS used on earlier models) and subsequently installed on the front half of an F-18 drop tank (probably because the under-wing environment was too vibration prone).

It seems like a sound move, though with the USAF shoving F-15s and F-16s out the door as quickly as possible so as not to compete with the F-35 JSF, I’m a bit dubious.

My earlier posts on this are here and here.

8 Months from Buy to Fly?

One of the things that is truly depressing about defense procurement is that we see evidence that it does not have to be that bad, case in point, the MC-12W Liberty, a derivative of the mid size turboprop civil transport Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350.

The aircraft is purchases for $7 million, and the mods and equipment cost another $10 million for modifications, for video , sigint, and other surveillance and communications gear, which should prove particularly useful in places like Afghanistan.

The need is real, the requirements were not inflated, and the system is entering service in less than a year.

But this should be the rule, and not the exception, as it is today.

The Israelis are not the Only Ones With Systems Integration Issues with the JSF

It looks like the UK JSFs will be unable to carry 4 AIM-132 ASRAAMS internally, as opposed to the original 4, so a loadout of 4 will require external pylons, but the stealthy pylons which had been previously promised have not been funded.

The ASRAAM is significant, because it has lock after launch and much better kinematics (though inferior very short range agility) than the AIM-9X, allowing a modicum of BVR capability.

Is it just me, or is the entire JSF program beginning to sound a lot like what some are facetiously calling the “iFascism” that emanates from Steve Jobs and Apple Computer:

One thing that fascinates me is the way that Apple continues to maintain a cool/benevolent/almost counter-culture reputation, while actually being an incredibly aggressive, ruthless, arguably monopolistic company (the way they are cornering the music and phone businesses, and the way they so carefully guard applications on the iphone). Compare this to Microsoft, which has a more fascist ambiance around it.

Obviously, the consequences of an intensely closed platform in a PC and media player are of less consequence than for a front line fighter, but Apple has already has filed for a patent to automatically deactivate your devices if you use them in a non-approved manner, and the US Air Force, and Lockheed-Martin seem to have a similar goal with the JSF: making it extremely difficult for non-US weapons to be used, and I do think that there is a remote off switch in there.

If I were looking at buying a fighter, I would therefore be very concerned about the degree of control that the Pentagon, and perhaps LM would have over the operation of the aircraft.

Rafale Win in Brazil Less Certain

Brazil has officially extended the final bid deadline until October 2, and there are now reports that the Rafale was not the first choice of the Brazilian Air Force, with the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) favoring the F/A-18 E/F, and the “engineers” favoring the Gripen.

I would assume that the FAB refers to the guys who fly, and that the “engineers” are the maintainers.

The latter is far from surprising. As the Gripen is less than ½ the size of its competitors, with ½ the number of engines, the simple laws of physics say that its per flight hour costs, and logistical tail, will be significantly less than either its French or American competitors.

The austere field capabilities of the Swedish jet may have influenced this too.

My guess is that the Rafale was “selected” on the basis of French technical offsets, which are at a level that the Swedes are unable to provide, and the United States is unwilling to provide, but these are considerations that is unlikely to bear much weight with a military service.

US Navy to Drop One LCS Design

This News is not really a surprise.

The ships are very expensive, and making 2 different models is expensive.

My guess would be that the trimaran LCS-2 is toast. It’s more expensive, and Aluminum rather than steel, like the monohull LCS-1, which raises durability issues, even if it might be a bit more stingy with a gallon of gas, and has a much wider and more stable flight deck.

They are both designed to perform multiple roles with modular mission packages (surface warfare, mine warfare, special ops insertion, etc.) that can swapped out as the situation demands, which is, I think, a losing proposition anyway.

The modules create compromises which means that both ships are under-armed for their size.

The Israelis have rejected the ship, at one point, Lockheed-Martin proposed a modified ship without the mission modules to get the bang for the buck that the Israelis wanted, and the Israelis rejected that, and are not looking at other designs, most notably the MEKO A-100, which are smaller, lighter, and cheaper, for their needs, which among other things, do not require the relatively long range, or extremely high speeds (40kts +) of the LCS.

TIE Fighters Pics for you Star Wars Fans

My bad. These aren’t TIE Fighters, these are Thai fighters, specifically the SAAB Gripens that are to be delivered to Thailand.

The SAAB has a contract to deliver at least 6 of the diminutive fighters to Thailand, and the first of these aircraft has been assembled, and has taken flight.

My bad…No Star Wars here.

Here, have some video fighter jet pr0n by way of apology for misleading you.

In the words of Emily Latella, “never mind”.

KC-X Tanker Competition Back on

And in a stunning display of stupidity, the Pentagon is letting the USAF run the competition, which considering their record the past two times, is a lot like giving Jack the Ripper the straight razor concession at the prostitutes convention.

Boeing has wised up, and had decided to titch the “Frankentanker”, (paid subscription required) which had the “767-200 airframe; over-wing exits from the 767-300; floors, doors and structurally enhanced wings from the 767-300F; and a cockpit, tail section (with a more capable auxiliary power unit) and flaps from the 767-400ER,” which is a good thing.

Interestingly enough, they are also making noises about using the 777, but that aircraft appears to be rather too large for the requirements as I understand them unless they take the sawzall to it, and shorten the fuselage by a lot.

The most significant change here is that the specifications are much more explicit, because the challenge was driven by the wiggle room the last time around. (see graph pr0n, and click for full size)

With the FCS Cancelled….

The Army is looking at acquiring replacements for its M113 APC and Bradley IFV beginning in the next decade.

It’s clear that the M113 needs to be replaced, but the Bradley could continue serving but for one small problem: The Bradley has never carried enough troops, it carries 6 as opposed to the typically 9 which army doctrine calls for in a fire team.

That being said, if you replaced the current crewed Bradley turret with remotely operated turret, like the CTI 40mm Tele-Operated/Manned Turret, (top) a 40mm turret with case telescoped rounds, (bottom) you would eliminate the space inside the hull for the gunner and the commander would sit up front next to the driver, you would have about 3x the firepower, and 50% more crew carrying capacity.