We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:39:04 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification A while back I posted some pics and data on the XM307 multi-purpose machinegun currently under development. Most of you who commented were, well, *not* impressed. I've found some more data, all unclas and not FOUO that adds to the picture. Those of you who were not impressed, well, I suspect you still won't be. It certainly does look like a weapon designed by engineers, for engineers, that will not simplify the parts system nor make life easier for ammo dogs - I'm undecided if it will help the soldier, the primary customer! I would note that the expected production... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:09:10 -0600 will this weapon come with a pack mule? just wondering. didn't the army used to have something called "mule skinners". guess they will need some of them too. quess everything is hi tech now . that has it's plus and minuses but i've heard the desert conditions are really hard on hi tech weapons , extreme heat , sand etc. course you had rain , mud, heat etc. in vietnam. extreme cold snow etc in korea and just about everything in ww2. guess i'm just too picky.duh. i guess these guys know what they are doing. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-5954 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-5954 Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:04:39 -0600 Now *that* was a comment. I pretty much agree with all of it - though I'm not as sanguine about the batteries bit. If this hog can fly, the troops will make it fly. But, while OldFan scores some points... there are still some dogs out there that need killin'. My own taste in personal firearms tend towards the M-14 and 1911A1. I never liked the M16 until the M4 came out (and then people who hate the M4 started picking on me...) I simply cannot stand the Beretta as a side arm, but I understand why it got adopted. But then I'm a big guy, and humping the M14 and shooting the 1911A1 were never problems for me. I do prefer keeping my weapons simple, and, as an artilleryman, I have plenty of experience in dealing with balky electronics, but am not particularly intersted in going back to charts and darts (though I think all artillery officers should know charts and darts - you'll understand the gunnery problem much better than you do with just getting computer gunnery). We'll have to see how it plays out - the troops will be the final arbiters of how the ammo and such plays out - but, Mr. Corps Logistician - it's the retail delivery end, not the wholesale, where my concerns arise. Especially in expeditionary warfare, the logistics of which I am currently up to my navel in analyzing... and considering we're having problems now with enough ball ammo for rifles and SAWS, what's the budget/production sked look like for this new stuff? Yeah, the Germans went from the Panzer IIIH/IVE to the PzV, VI, and Maus - and never had enough of any of 'em, while we swamped 'em with gas-powered Ronsons, and the Russians swamped 'em with T-34s and JSIIIs. We're trying to be the Germans here, trading quality for mass, so we gotta get it right the first time. Of course, we're pushing the analogy pretty hard when we compare WWII to what's going on now! I like the concept of this system - I just have my concerns about some of the bits and pieces. Which is how it's supposed to work, no? We try to break everything during development, so we've cleared the decks for when we give it to the troops who will break it ways we never thought of! http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4800 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4800 Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:02:40 -0600 Slow technoligical advances are the hallmark of the U. S. Army. We [no mouse in my pocket - I was in for 26 years] abandoned repeating rifles for almost 20 years [after winning the Battle of Gettysburg with them], failed to deploy a functioning light mqachine gun in WWI [can you say "show-show"?] and deployed the best MBT in the world in late 1941 - and kept on producing the same piece of iron [M4 Sherman] while the Germans went from the Pz-IIIH to the Panther F. // During my 20 ywears as a defense contractor [which overlapped 13 years in the Reserves] I saw good idea after good idea bite the dust at the hands of institutions [e.g. Ft. Knox] that could only handle one new idea per generation! Every single person in our group of 27 was ex-military - including the secretary! Do not believe for a second that we were unrealistic or less than fully committed to building war-winning systems. The stuff we developed [and demonstrated in live fire!] in '87 is just beginning to percolate into the force [e.g. armed UAVs]. // This particular weapon system [and I do not currently work for the contractor that makes it] represents an order of magnitude increase in firepower over the venerable M2 [BTW, I am the only person I ever met in the whole damned Army that disliked that cranky, worn-out, over-weight beast of a gun]. Sure, it will have teething troubles - and they will be fixed in 5 years, before the fielding process is even completed. Battlefield resupply of batteries is a concern that is being worked from a dozen different angles [including an all-purpose battery recharger in every vehicle] // Every new advance in technology is met with the same set of objections from the "experts" in the Combat Developments Branch: 1) "It is too delicate and complex for the dirty battlefield" . They have never seen one, but they heard it was rough up there! 2) "It wastes precious ammo /fuel /power /manna /experience points /etc" . I was a Corps-level logistician and planned for 25,000 tons/day - we can fit it in somewhere! 3) "We would have to develop new tactics, operations and doctrine to accommodate this new weapon" You can wear powdered wigs and white pipe-clayed cross-belts and march to beat of fife and drum - we will sit behind the trees with our rifles . . . . . . 4) "It is iherently UNSAFE! ALL, I say again, ALL weapons are inherently unsafe in the eyes of total wusses - or professional safety officers. 5) "Our rude, crude unlettered troops will be baffled by the complexity of this system!" Repeating rifles, automobiles, airplanes, radios, helicopters, night vison goggles and personal computers were invented by Americans - I think we can find men that can use them on the battlefield, in fact, I think we have found them already. // Simple and cheap weapons always look good during peace or from a distance, but is that what YOU want to fight with? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4799 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4799 Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:49:56 -0600 Where the hell is John Browning, or Eugene Stoner when you need them? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4793 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4793 Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:22:51 -0600 Thanks, John, your answer was pretty much what I suspected. I had hoped that the military had a better system than we in industry do, but apparently not. Field testing of new CPUs in Macintoshes doesn't have quite the same consequences as discovering the tendency of a rifle to jam in the middle of combat, however... If I recall what I have read and heard correctly, though, the M16 has evolved into a pretty decent weapon, is that correct? I am getting concerned about the "Starship Troopers" aspect. As you mentioned, batteries could become a major issue (if they are not already), and battery technology is getting stuck after several years of impressive but not quite sufficient advances. Batteries are still heavy, and the power densities are near the limits of what we can achieve with electrochemical-based batteries. My work in the semiconductor industry has been split between improving performance and reducing power consumption to compensate for the lack of improvement in batteries (and being asked for the near impossible of improving performance WHILE reducing power consumption). While I'd love to see power-armor one day, I have no idea where the "power" part of it will come from. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4781 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4781 Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:33:59 -0600 Well, yes and no. We do invite users in to advise and test. The development community has enlisted soldiers (vice officers) assigned to it for just that purpose, and depending on many factors, brings in soldiers from serving/deployed units or takes the item to the soldiers for test. They make an honest effort. However, get the wrong guys (weak personalities who are intimidated by the 'techs for example) or, because of fear of failure during the early stages, conducting tests that are so sterile as to be worthless, can allow 'features creep' to overwhelm a project. The user community can be guilty of that too, as everybody has a 'good idea/pet rock'. Which gets you horses designed by committee - like the F-111 fighter-bomber that wasn't a fighter at all (Sorry MacNamara) and wasn't a great bomber - and found it's niche as an EW platform. Or the Crusader, or the Sgt York... We are reluctant to put truly new technology into combat trials, given the risk of loss of a weapon. A weapon can (seemingly) go just fine through troop trials and then have glaring problems in combat (see rifle, 5.56mm, M16). Not saying the problems don't crop up in trials - but the agendas in the development community can militate against them being highlighted. Part of the periodic revamping of the development/procurement process reflects attempts to address those issues and keep things honest. But, until something spends a good chunk of time in the hands of combat soldiers (average soldiers, not-handpicked testers, SOF, etc) you don't really have a good grasp on what the true MTBF (mean time between failure) rates are, the supply needs (Batteries? Another bunch of batteries?), and other issues (like the LandWarrior interface cable, etc). This weapon is all a part of trying to push the light fighters into the Starship Troopers universe - and it will be ugly in the beginning, I suspect. It usually is. But pretty much everyone in the process is trying hard to do the right thing - it's just that PVT Snuffy, the ultimate end-user, usually does not behave in the predicted fashion! And then there's the 'other guy'. The enemy. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4777 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4777 Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:25:53 -0600 I'm not equipped to comment on the utility of this weapon, but I do have a question: They have guys who have used these types of weapons and will use them again "at the pointy end" working directly with the weapon designers every day, don't they? I certianly hope so... but my realism (that is often mistaken for cynicism) warns me that the engineers are in a closed room somewhere thinking "hey, this is cool" instead of outside talking to the guys who end up using the weapon. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4774 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/06/xm307.html#comment-4774 Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:44:45 -0600