Sturgeon

Oh man, the Bumerang looks like it could kick the snot out of a Stryker.

In which Matt gets pissed:

Nontrivial, yes, but probably not that many eating rations. It's much more likely to be for allied forces.

Holy crap, people looked at halal rations and thought Obama was going to make the Army adopt Sharia law? A.) Are they unaware of our Muslim allies that may need a little help fighting, I dunno, Da'Ish? B.) Do they think he wants a military coup?

We pretty much know they did. I'm not sure what will come of that.

There still seems to be a bit of a misconception in this thread about what the problem with the G36 actually is. I'll copy the relevants from my post on the matter: OK, so first we need to get some confusing terminology out of the way. The ridged thing that's molded into the polymer H&K calls a "trunnion", but most people familiar with AR-15s would call a "barrel extension". We'll call it a trunnion, since that's what H&K calls it. So the trunnion is already steel. Would adding an aluminum mount for the trunnion solve the issue? No, because as you can see, there is still a polymer connection between the barrel and the sights. What is needed is some way to connect the sights and the barrel via metal or something else with a very low coefficient of thermal expansion that is otherwise suitable. I am not a polymers expert so I will leave it there. I will note that colli believes the correct polymer used for the receiver could have fixed this issue - indeed, what with the EMI/WTD-91 report alleging that the receivers were doped with polyethylene, maybe H&K's test samples were made of an appropriate material, and then they skimped out later (we know they skimped out - it's whether doing so caused the issue or just made it worse that's unclear). Does that explain the issue?

He's kidding, MJ.

ED: OK, some thoughts. First, methane first stage. Radical. Also, putting the Blue Origin smarties to work, I like that. Second, Vulcan was certainly the best name out of the candidates, so I'm glad they went with it as opposed to "Eagle" or "Freedom". However, "Vulcan" is such an awesome name for a rocket that everyone else thinks so too, which is why there's Vulcan Aerospace, the Vulkan, and the Vulcain engine. Naturally, I'm sure ULA will back out of the "Vulcan" name because Paul Allen will threaten to take some of their delicious monies, and we'll probably end up with a space launch vehicle called either "Apple Pie" or an alphanumerical. Third, they're suggesting it can carry CST-100. That would be a huge leap, as currently there are no man-rated rockets in that class. It looks like it promises considerably better payload than either Falcon or Atlas V was able to deliver, based on the fairings and size of the first stage. 20 tonnes to orbit would be fantastic, but maybe I'm overestimating due to the xbawks heug methane first stage. And of course, that neatly accommodates the heavier and funnier-orbiting spy satellites. Unlike SpaceX, ULA must have a mind on being the primary/only contractor for military spacelaunch. Fourth, looks like they are re-using existing solid rockets. That's fine, those rockets work well. However, it also looks like the rocket is set up for parallel homologous stages, as in that configuration the nozzles would be plenty far apart to avoid synergistic meltage. If that's the case, and if payload really is in the 20 tonne range for the heavier SRB-equipped configs, then a tripe-core variant could be a 40-tonne to orbit launcher. That would really be something, and actually could give SLS a run for its money, especially if the 110-130 tonne variants never materialize.

It's a bigger Atlas? What are the main engines? They look like 1.5 scale RD-180s.

There are no available GPCs - within the definition you outlined, Tony - that meet military ammunition specifications. Further, I know of no bullpups available that have been chambered for the 6.5 Grendel or similar by any factory larger than small custom shops. Given the absolutely limited extent of the 6.5 Grendel, it doesn't seem to gain you anything to stay within that round's specifications, as you're not maintaining compatibility with any appreciable existing infrastructure. Therefore, any new GPC rifle/cartridge development will be starting essentially from scratch.

I'm glad they were able to save them. Super jealous of how rich China is in dinosaur fossils these days.

My perspective on the matter aside, that doesn't seem to be a resounding argument for a GPC. After all, if more flexibility in ammunition is possible - especially if that ammunition is being ordered regularly and predictably, then having more calibers may not be such a burden. Somewhat paradoxically, it does raise the chances that a new caliber - even a GPC, if for example it was someone's pet project - could be adopted

I see a lot of very familiar AK-74Ms...

The PK/Iron Man backpack does not seem like a particularly happy marriage. ED: Oh wait, looks like their belts break off after 25 rounds or so. That's fine, I guess.

Behold, the nerdiest thing I have ever seen.

A5. There is already an A3 and A4.

Welcome to the forum, Tony. You mention that it's plausible the Germans could switch to a new caliber. That doesn't seem likely to me; the Bundeswehr would be loathe to breech NATO standardization agreements, much less obsolesce their entire stock of ammunition in favor of a new round with no military production or standards behind it. Further, those I've talked to who are closest to this issue all agree that the replacement will be in 5.56mm. The Bundeswehr needs rifles, and it needs them immediately, so this makes sense.

There are arguments for and against, but most importantly, a DMR cartridge does not necessarily need to be so large. 5.56 makes an adequate DMR cartridge with the right loads. Larger rounds like the GPC are favored by those with a "bigger is better" and "more energy is better" theory of small arms ammunition, but there's quite a bit of doubt in my mind about the virtue of those two metrics.

I'm hesitant to overstress logistics, but I think at least two or three kinds of ammunition are handled easily enough. Perhaps two kinds of loose ammunition, and one belted, or something of that nature.

I have a pretty good idea of the performance the 7x33 would produce - how could it be anything but inferior to 5.56? And if it's not superior, then how is it any more of a GPC than 5.56 is?

That sort of thing is clearly something to consider, but I think there are still necessary requirements for infantry rifles. The bayonet analogy is helpful, but you can only push it so far. At the end of the day, the rifle is still relevant as a suppression device, if not as a casualty-producing machine.

I don't mind the P90, but suggestions of using it and similar weapons as the primary kinetic energy infantry small arms are... Radical, certainly. The truth is, the P90 and the MP7 both have atrocious ballistics; while they can technically kill you at 200m, it doesn't take very much at all to stop them from doing so. The aim of those weapons is admirable; I think the pursuit of smaller, lighter infantry weapons designed for 200m/300m/400m combat is reasonable, but you have to meet requirements first. I don't think either the 5.7 or 4.6 do. 5.56 does, and it's not the smallest thing that could, so the 4.6 and 5.7 may represent going "too far" in the right direction.

I really wish we had a cogent, rational GPC advocate on this board, however I am not really convinced that more than a handful such individuals exist at all.

Standalone weapons do not allow you to splatter a target with a grenade and then immediately follow up with your rifle, which is an important capability. However, standalones are still useful, hence the M320 GL, which can be both.