U.S. Army gears up for largest weapons modernization program since WWII

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army is in the early stages…

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Army is in the early stages of developing its most expensive weapons program in its history, but the project, which largely depends on three separate military programs, could already be in jeopardy. The most ambitious weapons upgrade the U.S. Army has experienced since WWII will run the gamut of weapon modernization with Future Combat Systems, a new generation of weapons, combat vehicles, robots and sensors connected to a wireless network. For more details on this, click here and return back to tell us what you think about the Army’s plans.

Load Comments
  • anonymous

    Agree with the 6.8 to replace the 223. Long distances and high velocity fragmentation are no longer the rule as CQB and short barrels (M4) are the rule of the day.

    Wounding the enemy is also not an issue when your enemy is intent on dying. The M9’s are big and fat. You could replace it with a hicap 45 and still end up with a similar size and function pistol (HK, S&W M&P, etc).

    Never lose heavy armor. It has its place. Every tool has its pro/con and its proper place.

  • Badkarma 325

    As for an ex-Grunt (1976 -1984 3/325 82nd ABN)I am always for improved equipment for the infantryman. I was also in a equipment transitional period. We went from jeeps to HumV’s, M60’s to SAW’s, 1911’s to 92F’s, ripstop and WWII OD green fatigues to BDU’s, steel pots to Kevlar helmets & vests, UH-1H helocopters to Blackhawks ect ect ect. My point being is that light infantry is’nt. These guys still have to wear, carry and effectivly employ their equipment. All the new cool equipment that is issued to most combat soldiers is a good thing, however, do our troops still train at night without the benefit of night vision? Can they still effectivly engage a target at 300 meters without their optical sight? Can they still navagate from point A to point B with a map and compass instead of a GPS? Good things to consider if there is an EPM strike. And don’t forget Murphy’s Laws Of Combat rule 24 “Things that must be together to work, usually is’nt shipped together.” Case in point all of the aboved mentioned things need batteries (extra stuff to carry)not to mention having to hump all of the other issued stuff (Hell my AR-15A3 after rails, front grip and Aimpoint is heavier than my old M16A2). And I pity the guys that have to carry all the issued gear nowdays but especially while in full protective gear in a NBC enviroment. I hope to God the DoD is looking long and hard at what they expect the infantry soldier to carry and use.

    Will

  • ExSoldier

    The US Army desperately needs to upgrade the weapons systems of the infantryman as well as any sidearm carried by support personnel and officers.

    The M16/M4 series has had it’s day and so has the 5.56mm cartridge. The basic platform is okay as it goes as can be seen in the somewhat derivative H&K 416. But the 5.56 isn’t doing the job. Perhaps the 6.8mm would be a better choice. If the operations anticipated in future war will be engagements at less than 300 meters than perhaps one answer could be found in the .300 “Whisper.” Perhaps not, but it’s a suggestion. I also think that suppressor technology can be advanced to the point that a suppressor can be attached to all battle rifles lowering noise signature and flash. Probably make BRM (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) easier to teach, too.

    IF we weren’t constrained by the Hague accords on ammunition and could employ JHPs with our 9mm sidearms they’d probably be fine since technology makes the expansion properties of the 9mm and the 45ACP nearly identical while still allowing for the single most important factor in a handgun encounter at any range: SHOT PLACEMENT.

    Still if we’re stuck with BALL ammo then the 9mm becomes wholly inadequate. Cross sectional density and velocity almost dictate the tried and historically proven 45 ACP, but NOT the 1911 platform. I know a lot of folks will consider that heresy, but I think that the H&K 45 should be the sidearm of the future armed forces. Just MHO.

    BTW, DITCH the Stryker as a replacement for the M1A2 Abrams tank. Keep it as a workhorse battle taxi but leave heavy armor alone! Upgrade the M1 series tank but do not under any circumstances get rid of this system.

    • DAN TIZEN USA-RET

      Yes, I’m always up for up grading equipment.
      What concerns me is we seem to be spending
      money in a very reactive rate. We need to KISS
      many of the challanges we have with weapons.
      Don’t missunderstand I want our troops to have
      what they need as soon as we can get it to them. As we stand today we are the best equipt
      and trained military there has ever been.
      Always room for improvement. The 99% rule.
      WEAPONS, 6.8,6.5,308, 45ACP. YES!!!!
      The Stryker has a very good place on the battle-field. Don’t every lose the heavy armor.
      I’ve had the honor of working in the middle-east as a military and diplomatic advisor for years. We don’t want to loose site of the number one weapon we will need most as this war moves into the many decade it could last, THE GREAT YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN ($$$$)
      Politics and corp-greed will also be a major
      challenge.
      THANKS for your time and keep up the great work.
      DAN

      • Elliot

        hey dan jus wanted to say the american army isnt the best equiped army anymore the british army are a tad better equiped beacause of the sa80 and l96 which out perform the assault rifle and sniper rifles used genrally in the us army. GREAT BRITAIN! lol