advances in infantry weapons technology vs. advances in aviation weapons technology

[nocal80]

Does it seem to anyone else that there have been incredible leaps and bounds in the weaponry employed by aviation assets eg pgm's, but not much at all as far as technology for individual infantryman? I've been seeing crap about the "next generation" assault rifles on TV for years, you know, the ones that have little cameras and can see around corners, but it seems like most of these ideas are still on the drawing board. It just seems to me that if more money had been spent on R&D for things like assault rifles and body armor the guys on the ground would be in better shape. Anyone have any theories?

 

[nittany03]

No one expected to be fighting a land war in Asia when the funding for those weapons was granted. Before 9/11 war==big giant video game to many people.

 

[lowflier03]

There were some nice advances, none were ever approved though. Personally I liked the idea of the HK assault rifle with all the nice mods that used caseless ammo.

 

[helldog]

I agree: the HK caseless ammo would totally cut weapon weight and the FN SCAR or its HK equivalent with swappable barrels and Picatinny systems, and the new 6.8 SPC would be great assets to our fighting personnel.

 

[Slammer2]

Someone also mentioned something on here the other day about all that new high-tech stuff needing batteries and running out of power too quickly. I've also seen a bunch of those shows with all the new tech stuff like the masks the soldiers wear to relay a bunch of data to them. Kinda like a HUD mask or something. But I wonder how comfortable a soldier would feel wearing a mask in front of him while fighting. Just wondering if it would feel unnatural in some way and lead him to not be able to fight as good, even though he's got the one-up with all the new toys.

Edit: By the way, interesting topic to bring up

 

[helldog]

From personal experience paintballing outdoors, leading a squad, masks are uncomfortable and ungainly, but one gets used to them. However, there is the issue of reliability and the fact that the enemy will not be encumbered by this equipment. Until the techs can scale it down to a pair of Oakleys with HUDs built in, I think it would be disastrous to introduce this gear on a small-unit level. Still the mask in its current form might serve the PL or company commander well in enhancing his real-time C3 (Command, Control, Communication) perception. As far as power supply, if some bright boy'd use the soldier's own kinetic energy or solar power to charge the batteries or system capacitors, most of the problem would assuredly go away. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[nocal80]

No one expected to be fighting a land war in Asia when the funding for those weapons was granted. Before 9/11 war==big giant video game to many people.

good point, I bet the air force was a little taken aback when a lot of their new toys were rendered basically irrelevant.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Does it seem to anyone else that there have been incredible leaps and bounds in the weaponry employed by aviation assets eg pgm's, but not much at all as far as technology for individual infantryman?

We have spent the last couple thousand years perfecting the infantryman's weapon...whereas we have had less than 100 years to work on aircraft.

There HAVE been some major improvements though. The interceptor system w/ SAPII plates, the SALLE system, the M16A4 line w/ things like ACOGs.

 

[helldog]

Don't forget defense, nocal. Infantry has gone from wearing chain mail and heavy unbreatheable steel armor to K-pots and ceramic body armor. (New technology can circulate fluid in the vests to cool the wearer down, too. Hope that innovation becomes general issue for the sake of those in the MidEast.)

 

[Slammer2]

Just a random thought...I also think though that there needs to be some "basic" things about standard infantry fighting equipment. If you think about it, you can have all the futureistic stuff, and some dude can still hit you in the head with a sling shot and kill you. But I think with aircraft, (while the same kinda holda true), its a little bit harder. By making the aircraft faster, or more agile, or giving them new improved countermeasure decives, I would think that it makes them harder to hit. More precise offensive weapons/systems help to destroy the enemy better. But if you're on the ground running around, you still need to just be able to run fast and shoot straight...not really a whole lot you can add to that. But of course thats just a wannabe speculating here...I don't really know crap

 

[HueyCobra8151]

But if you're on the ground running around, you still need to just be able to run fast and shoot straight...not really a whole lot you can add to that.

Enter LAV's, AMTRACK's, M1A1's, Humvee's, etc..., and exit running around (to some extent).

Land mobile operations are really difficult in terrain like Iraq. It takes so much effort and so much time to dig in for the day in the deep desert, that you have to stop moving pretty early.