+1

Guys, this is starting to get a bit ugly. Please keep it civil and/or move it to PMs. Thanks.

there has always been friction comparing British/Commonwealth kit with American.

America has to equip a massive army economicly. as a result they have an assault rifle that essentialy works but can be mass produced relatively easily and cheaply (sure the M16 is a bit complicated but well within the capabilities of America's industrial base). When you look at some of the other American kit, it's bloody awesome. A good example is the 50 cal MG, this thing is decades old but nobdy has yet built a weapon that can replace it.
Another example is America aircraft. Both Australia and New Zealand are quite happy to use American warplanes because they are the best in the market for the required role. I often wish the British governemnt would swallow it's collective pride and replace the Tornados and Typhoons with F/A 18 Hornets like the Canadians did.

Australia has a much smaller military and can afford to be picky, hence they went with the AUG for infantry and American for air force.

All the talk about the life span of the M-16 got me wondering...

To replace the entire weapon, costs the tax payer $586.00 as of the last congressional review.

The barrel, and this is very dependent on the type of barrel, is expected to last for roughly 100,000 rounds. This also depends on the type of ammo fired and environmental factors. In other words, it is very dependent on a wide range of factors....sooooooooo, roll a d100 I guess!

The weapon is supposed to be pulled from the units for depot level maintenance roughly every ten years. During this period, the weapon is broken down into component parts, and then carefully inspected and worn parts replaced as needed. The military purchases a fairly large amount of spare parts for these weapons so there is the ability to keep the Mighty Mattel up and running for some time.

According to a co-worker, several M-16s with serial numbers dating back to 1964 are still in service, according to records, turned over to various police departments.

I'm a little surprised by Legs comments about the condition of the weapons he saw, before M-16s are released for international sales, they go through a depot-level rebuild and then are released to the purchasing nation, unless they were transferred through a third party...but that would violate the end user's certificate...may have to send some bean counters down to investigate!!!

BEWARE THE WRAITH OF THE BEAN COUNTERS!!!!!

;)

Our entire battalion's supply of M60's was also worn out - we had a useless armourer. They were pulled from service and returned two days later as almost different weapons - all the worn bits and peices had been replaced by the armourer of the training unit were were with at the time.
This was however before we received the M16s (which had come from another unit which had received the AUG). We struggled through with them for about 3 years before all our L1A1s and M16s were also replaced withthe AUG, holding only a handful of the better M16's for M203 mounts.
I believe even those M16s are now gone, with the GL now munted directly on an AUG.
The L1A1's we had were as old, if not older than the M16s and even with our crappy armourer, still functioned perfectly.

Overall I agree with what you've said but for some points, it's a little more complex. For example, the Typhoon is probably better suited to European needs than the Hornet is simply because of initial design criteria for both aircraft. Australia has typically selected it's aircraft from all over Europe and North America.
We've had/have British, French, German, Italian, Swiss, Canadian, US, Australian and New Zealand aircraft in the inventory.
There have been just as many British designs as US over the years. We've selected what we thought was best for the defence of mainland Australia and that has not always been a US design. For example, the winners of the last Australian Army helicopter trials have all been European designs.

When it comes to Australia's choice for infantry rifle, it's a bit of a mess. Originally, the contenders included the M16A2, the locally designed caseless ammunition C30R and its 5.56mm C60R cased ammunition variant (which incidentally went on to become the Bushmaster M17 rifle) alongside the AUG (I think there were a few others examined but I can't remember what they were).

The C30R lost out due to a catastrophic failure when ammunition detonated and the rifle was irretrievably damaged (along with the maker's reputation as many in Australia said that we had no ability to commercially produce police/military weapons - conveniently forgetting that the Owen Gun was the product of an individual and the Austen SMG was the product of a private company and not the government arms factory). It was, by what little info is left about it, a good rifle with good tactical advantages (a 60-rd magazine) and a significant technology leap especially considering it was made entirely by self-funded private enterprise.

The M16A2 was selected as the winner due in no small part to allow some greater commonality with our allies - specifically the USA but also Singapore at the time. The selection criteria also required the licence to build the rifle locally. Colt, having lost the manufacture of the M16A2 to FN-USA, refused to allow Australia to build the rifle locally and required that we purchase all of them from Colt.

The Australian government said no way and dropped the M16A2 and selected the AUG instead. The AUG has one serious issue which has seen an M16 variant used in its place, units tasked for amphibious roles (e.g. the Commando Regiments) typically use the M4 carbine. Apparently this is to do with the lower rate of rust buildup from salt water exposure but I've also heard concerns that the AUG body would fill up with water and not drain out properly (and would require complete disassembly to ensure all the internals were free of any salt water residue).


To (hopefully) put that into some sort of relevance for the thread, the Australian experience shows that it's not always such a simple choice in peacetime. In wartime or the recovery period just after wartime, the choice can be severely restricted and maybe a hell of a lot harder.

The Typhoon was as much a sheer, bloody disaster as the Tornado was a success. It's a warplane made by commitee and was obsolete before it even saw service. it was constantly delayed as interested nations kept wanting to add bits and pieces.We are stuck with it mostly because it's paid for and the governemnt has no money to replace it.

The Tornado was a great aircraft but it's showing it's age now. The F/A-18 would of been a great alternative to both untill the American JSF becomes available.

The RAF is a shambles right now, savaged by cuts and left wit outdated aircraft on one hand and useless aircraft on the other. It'll be like that well into the 2020's. We don't even have the ability to retake the Falklands should the Argentinians put together a force that can overwhelm the garrison there.

Several of the SPRs my last unit had were built on Harrington and Richardson M16A1 lowers, which makes them date to the Vietnam era. Of course, the upper was brand new and the guts of the lower were replaced (match trigger, etc.).

More recently my issue M203 for a while was Vietnam vintage, made by AAI as part of the initial 10500 purchased by the military. My specific weapon, S/N 5015, was made in 1970. Still worked fine.

I have no real idea about the Typhoon (I would like to know, however, why you said it is such a failure? Despite the fact it is quite expensive)
but what you say about the RAF is in IMVMO (VM standing for very modest:D) true for every airforce (including USAF). Most of the aircraft flying today have been developed some 30 years ago and the only exception is that of the F22 Raptor (187 planned: must be a joke). F35 Lightning will not enter service before 3-5 years (and it is damn expensive). The PAK-FA will not enter service before 4 years. The Chengdu J-20 is planned to enter service in 7 years.

The most interesting surprise came from China with the Chengdu J20. I recall an exchange we had some years ago where most of us advocated that China wouldn't be able to develop such an aircraft before 2020 (they had one flying last year). For my part I thought it would come earlier than 2020 but not that early.

First it was made by commitee, the Tornado program was organised, streamlined and each nation had clear deadlines for submitting changes and inprovements. With the Typhoon the nations involved kept submitting new ideas and changes with no structure, forcing the design to be constantly re-evaluated. The result is an aircraft with no clear function, designed to do everything well while suffering from the same problems as most JOAT (jack of all trades) aircraft. The range is too low, the payload is too small and it's too damn expensive for what it is.

From what I read I don't see any substantial differences with the various contenders (altough I just went through a quick review on wiki). Announced payload is 7500kg vs 8050kg for the Super Hornet.

The main issue remains that of cost but what would have costed the closure of the corresponding factories? We have had the same issue in France with the Rafale. It is also outdated and has needed a crash-upgrade program for the aircrafts sent to Afghanistan (in order to allow them to drop laser-guided bombs, give me a break that's too funny especially as they have since been replaced by Mirage F1CR:(:p). Then, in the case of France we are not even party in the development of any generation 5 aircraft and we are not developping one of our own. At least, the RAF should receive F-35 Lightning II withing 5-7 years. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with an Australian report I founded some times ago and which stated that relying primarily on furtivity is a mistake (That same report also stated that the F22 or the PAK-FA were much better than the F35, we'll see).

Concerning Air Force strength, the French Air Force still flies 306 combat aircraft (+69 for the navy) but that number is expected to be reduced to 120 (+60 for the navy) quite soon (Khadaffi is definitely the unlucky guy of the year). As far as I know, all major air forces have followed the same path. As long as we have the ability to fight on foreign soils with the full support of technology, it's fine. If someone ever manage to deprive our defences of that full technological backup, it's going to become fun.

What you describe for the Typhoon as plagued (IMO) all post cold-war aircrafts and, provided military planners are right it their assumption of future conflicts, it shouldn't represent much of a problem. Of course, we all know that military planners are always wrong (as demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq in 2003). However, ultimate success doesn't depend much on military planners but on the ability to adapt quickly and to mass produce military goods faster than your ennemy (as demonstrated by that same invasion of Iraq or by US and USSR in ww2).

We had the same problem in the 1st Gulf War. Untill they crash-developed the TIALD pods we had to fly Buccaneers as laser designators for the Tornados carrying Paveway.

I knew about that one but I'm always amazed to the low level of reading among aircraft engineers. Moreover, we are supposed to be on the same side and, in 15 years, they could have tried to learn from British experience.

The worse into this is that our mirage 2000D are supposed to be equipped with that type of equipments. Then, why would you put the same equipment, first hand, on the aircraft which is planned to replace them?:D

There is something else I love since the end of the Cold war and that is range reported to our nuclear capable aircrafts.
Mirage IV: 2000 km (external tanks)
Rafale and Mirage 2000D : around 800km.

During the cold war we could deliver nukes as far as western USSR (Belarus and Ukraine). With our new aircraft our main targets have become Berlin, London, Madrid and Rome.

Finally, according to our current government, due to changes in the nature of threats, we will soon be closing most of our air bases to the East and North. Then, our nuclear bombers will be capable to reach highly strategic targets such as Tunis, Madrid and Rome (we might have some kind of issue with the Italian and Spanish), Malta, Baleares, Lille, Paris and Strasbourg... :D British and German can sleep well now but you might think about avoiding the Mediterranean and France for your vacations or risk sunburns.:cool::p

[QUOTE=Mohoender;34368]During the cold war we could deliver nukes as far as western USSR (Belarus and Ukraine). With our new aircraft our main targets have become Berlin, London, Madrid and Rome.[QUOTE]

Well, the Romans do have that past history of invasion and conquest of the Guals, better safe than sorry!


So the drivers of Paris are now considered to be threats to national security. Yup! This calls for swift action!

:D

@ 95th Rifleman
Ah I see what you're saying now and I have to agree.

In regards to what everyone else has been saying (especially the info from Mohoender), it's kind of scary to see how much money and effort has been put into new aircraft designs and yet it would appear that the models they are replacing were actually more capable.
It seems to be that that's the reason why the UK kept the Buccaneer for so long and why Australia kept the F-111 for so long - no modern design could replicate what they do.

It sometimes seems that governments replace planes for the sake of replacing them,to be seen to be advancing in technology when they are taking a backward step.

After they scrapped the Jaguar the ONLY aircraft we had that was designed for close air support was the Harrier. Now they have scrapped that we are flying CAS missions in Libya less than a freaking year after we scrap the Harrier fleet! We are putting Brimstone missles onto Tornados desighned for strategic bombing/photo-recce roles and calling it a CAS bird.

The Typhoon was supposed to be an interceptor but ended up being a multi-role aircraft that is essentilay an interceptor. It's like taking a peregrine falcon, training her to hunt pigeons and then expecting her to do tricks, talk like a parrot and help with fishing.