Posted on 05/10/2005 6:52:16 PM PDT by CHARLITE
In World War II and Korea, American fighter pilots compiled impressive "kill ratios" against the Germans and Japanese (8 to 1) and the Chinese and North Koreans (10 to 1). These successes came to an embarrassing halt over the skies of Vietnam in 1967. The North Vietnamese pilots found that they could defeat the larger, more complex and cumbersome American fighter aircraft by shooting them down with unsophisticated heat-seeking missiles and cannon fire. When kill ratios diminished to near parity, the American air services resolved to spare no expense to regain absolute dominance in the air.
For the next 40 years the Air Force and Navy spent literally trillions of dollars transforming how they fought in the air. They formed fighter schools such as Top Gun for the Navy and Red Flag for the Air Force to relearn the art of aerial combat. The services developed families of new fighters such as the F-15 and F-16 flown by the American and Israeli air forces and the Navy's F-14 and F-18. The investment has paid off. Since Vietnam, Americans and Israelis flying American aircraft have achieved kill ratios of several hundred to one. No one can challenge us in air-to-air combat today.
On the ground, the news on kill ratios hasn't been very good. The numbers are inexact, but recent experience suggests that Army and Marine ratios are at about six to one when engaging an enemy with help from artillery and air power. They compress to about parity when the enemy is able to draw our soldiers into the close fight in places like Fallujah.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Can anyone say "robot?"
Char :)
I have been seeing this type of ammuntion on TV for some time and was under the impression that it would be deployed in the future. There is no excuse to not provide the best equipment to the infantry and support troops who do most of the bleeding in war.
Um, it's still not field ready, and the weapon that you use to launch the round is a 20lb pig of a weapon that costs about $5,000 per copy. The weight of the rounds alone is prohibitive.
Money would be better spent in making better rifles and moving the airburst weapon to the role of the M203.
It would also be better spent in developing better armor for our troops - most of our losses are due to wounds on unarmored extremities or plain old armor failure (in general combat).
Also, do you want to be the guy that has to stand up and lase the target then do it again to launch the round? The OICW, which is what this guy is talking about, is a sick joke. We would be much better served with the FN2000 system.
self ping for later reading.
The pig of a weapon weighs 28 pounds and costs 300,000 each, it was the XM 29 OICW. the 20mm airburst projectile had a CEP of more than a meter but its frag was lethal less than half a meter so you basically have to hit the enemy to kill them and the frag wont penetrate level three armor. MG Scales is a general and he doesn't talk to grunts he talks to other generals and defense contractors. If you want to know what works go see the Izzies. The 60 million dollars used on the XM29 would have purcheased alot of ammo.
Personnaly I like the 6.8mm SPC its a great cartridge and is very practical to fit it into a reworked M4 or M16
I wonder a bit about these numbers. They may make the general's point better, but I believe we are doing better than that.
do
these things wo
rk?>?/I>
The above is the latest varient using the the Air Burst Munition, now 25mm. The latest varient should be pursued and not abandoned as Scales has suggested it may. There are certainly other areas such as armour etc. that could be improved. The possible cancellation of this sytem is symtomatic of the larger problem of the Pentagon and Congress favoring huge ticket items to increase their budget and provide jobs in districts at the expense of those on the ground.
IIRC, in Fallujah the enemy lost something like 1,500 dead and we lost about 70. Hardly parity.
Basically, it's a grenade with a programmable time fuse. The soldier lases the cover that the target is hiding behind, the computer on the weapon displays the distance on a readout, the soldier pushes a couple of buttons to tell the munition at what distance to go off, the computer calculates the time and tells the grenade when to go off. The soldier pulls the trigger, the grenade launches and X number of seconds later the thing goes off. If you've done it right, it should burst just over the heads of the people hiding behind the wall.
However, there are *many* practical problems with this system as it currently stands. It's heavy, for starters. Can you figure out what the rest of them are?
I thought I read somewhere that those grenades are spin fused. The fuse counts the number of revolutions to judge distance down range. Of course now I can't find the article I was reading about it.
The rounds are HALF A POUND EACH. The weapon itself is 25 POUNDS! Geez, they're going backwards.
Everything but the airburst mode can be duplicated by the FN2000, and FN is looking at that as an option.
I think it used the spin counter to determine time, since a standard quartz timing system would be destroyed on launch.
I type corrected, but that's just about as bad. However, the velocity out of this thing is a lot lower than the Bushmaster cannon in the Bradley. It's also heavy as heck, I suspect the performance of the Bushmaster 25mm HE round is going to be a LOT less effective against armor from this weapon. As for knocking out a light armored vehicle, we already have something that can do that. It's called the .50 BMG. The 40mm round can also blow off a track or disable a BTR.
Huummm
Seems on the ammo front, the Marines (u-rah) are working on 12GA FRAG and HEAP rounds that will work in current shotguns.
Always thought the 12 GA flechette round was the best - makes 'em a believer, don't cha know.
Thanks, but I will go with the thermobaric RPG-29.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.