Author Archives: parvusimperator

Parvusimperator Reviews the SCAR-16S

Posted by

I picked up a SCAR 16S a few weeks ago. I got it because I wanted a factory carbine in 5.56mm that wasn’t an AR-15–I have a few AR-15s already, and I really enjoy putting together AR-15 project guns. And if I wanted something different, I was going to get something significantly different. Plus, the SCAR 16 was the coolest gun in the world when I was in high school. I wanted one so bad. Well, now I have one.1 What’s it like, and how does it stack up to a comparable AR-15?

The SCAR was designed by FN for SOCOM. It was to be the ultimate carbine for their requirements, replacing the Mk. 12 CQBR, the M4 and the Mk. 18 SPR. It was intended to be highly modular, and featured a quick-change barrel. The SCAR 16 shares 90% of its parts with its big sister, the SCAR 17, which is chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO. Currently, SOCOM is focused it’s resources on buying the SCAR 17, since it’s hard to find anything quite as good in 7.62 NATO, and they can get M4s for “free.”2 A variant of the SCAR, the FN Advanced Carbine, was entered in the individual carbine competition, but that competition was cancelled. The SCAR has proven reliable and popular with SOCOM, especially with the SEALs. However, it hasn’t been a big enough improvement over the M4 (which itself is improving) to warrant procurement by Big Army. Enough history, let’s get on to the civvie version!

Disclaimer: A SCAR is not an AR-15.

You might think this is totally obvious, but I think it bears repeating. People are used to AR-15s, and a lot of SCAR reviews out there call out the SCAR for not being 100% AR-15-like. Well of course it’s not. If you want an AR-15, go buy one of those. I love AR-15s. I think they’re great. I won’t stop you. But this is different in a lot of ways–some good, some bad.

The SCAR 16S is chambered in 5.56x45mm, and comes with a 16″ lightweight barrel. Works for me. It’s 1.5″ longer than the standard barrel length in the military version, but I have to deal with the NFA and they don’t. Also unlike the military version, it comes with the excellent FSC556 muzzle brake instead of a flash hider. Since it’s got a 16″ barrel, muzzle devices can be swapped by the owner if desired. Otherwise, it’s basically the same gun as the military version.

THE GOOD
The stock is pretty awesome. Since there’s no buffer tube,3 the stock can fold. It’s also telescoping, and has a nifty adjustable cheek riser. The SCAR can be fired while the stock is folded, which makes you feel cool. And also, kinda goofy. The stock has six positions of telescoping goodness, and the riser has two positions. I’ve heard stories that soldiers had issues with the stock breaking. I’m not sure how much of this is because soldiers can break anything, and how much is due to engineering problems that have been worked out but mine is pretty sturdy. I haven’t actually tried to smash it to bits or do anything stupid with it like break rocks, but I also haven’t babied it. I’m no soldier, so take that as you will.

I like the reciprocating charging handle. You can mount it on the left or the right side of the gun. Some people have scraped knuckles on their optic when using it, but this hasn’t happened to me. I have an Aimpoint Comp M4S mounted on my SCAR, and I tend to wear gloves at the range. If you don’t wear gloves and have a different optic, your results might be different. Some people have also complained that the charging handle has hit their hand while shooting. I’m not honestly sure how this can happen if you’re not trying to make it happen, but maybe that’s because I don’t hold my carbine like a complete moron. I’ve also not seen anyone post a picture anywhere of their hand position when the charging handle hit it. The reciprocating charging handle makes diagnosing whether your magazine is empty or if your weapon has jammed easy. Plus it makes locking the bolt back for administrative or remedial action simple. On the left side, you can pull the bolt back, and with your hand palm down, can trip the bolt catch to lock the bolt in position with your thumb. Simple, convenient, one-handed operation.

The bolt catch is only on the left side of the gun, but the safety and mag release are ambidextrous out of the box. As mentioned before, the charging handle can be configured on the left or the right side, per the user’s preference. The safety is nicer than the AR-15, since the 45 degree position is fire, not the 90 degree one. The shorter throw is nicer to work with. I know, it sounds silly, but it still works better. It’s a bit nicer for the military, since full auto is at the 90 degree position rather than the 180 degree one. Triggerwise, there’s a “combat trigger” in there that’s designed to resist abuse and desert sand and always trip a primer. So it’s not bad, but it’s not good. It’s a trifle gritty and somewhat heavy. There are aftermarket triggers from Geissele and Timney that make things better, of course.

Unlike a lot of the higher-end AR-15s, the SCAR comes with a quality set of folding backup iron sights. The rear sight is adjustable for range and windage, and has two apertures. The front sight is mounted conveniently on the gas block. Minor annoyance: it blocks the front of the picatinny rail, so you can’t slide an accessory over it. Most things you’d want to mount on the top rail don’t need to slide on like that, but there it is.

I should also mention the quick-change barrel. I think the military may like this one more than me. It takes me a long time to shoot out a barrel, and I don’t often think of swapping them. However, I do like that I don’t need a vise to remove or replace a barrel, unlike when working with the AR-15. It’s a minor thing, but the design is cool, and it saves me having to figure a way to improvise a vise in my apartment.

THE BAD
First thing I’m going to call FN out on here is being cheap. The gun came to me in a cardboard box, with some cardboard padding. Lame. With an MSRP well north of two grand, the least they could do is throw in a halfway decent plastic case. Ideally, it’d be a lockable travel-ready case, but I’d settle for almost anything nicer than this lame cardboard thing. It’s not even a cool looking box.

They’re cheap again with the stupid A2-type pistol grip. No one likes these. They’ve got a nub in a stupid place. This is an expensive gun intended for civilians. Would it kill you to put a better grip on there? There are lots available, and while preferences vary, almost all of them are better than the basic A2. It’s something the premium-ARs tend to get right. First thing I changed was the lame grip. Fortunately, AR-type grips work on it, so I grabbed one and made the switch.

The SCAR is in some ways stuck in the early 2000s. Just like the stock M4, it comes with seven inches of handguard space. This is enough for your hand. There’s room for accessories, but it gets a little cramped. You also don’t have much choice in where you’re going to put your hand. AR-15 ergonomics have moved on so people can grip out further if they want, and so that there’s more space for hands and accessories. For the record, this is why so many military guys went to vertical foregrips. Once they loaded their M4s with all their kit, there wasn’t enough room left for their hands. Being a civilian, I don’t have this much crap to hang off my gun. I might like to get my support hand out a bit more though. There are extensions, but they add weight forward. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and the SCAR is probably heavier than most AR-15 carbines out of the box. That said, I might give a handguard extension a try.

THE ENGINEERING
Clearly, the SCAR doesn’t use the same sort of operation as the AR-15. The SCAR is tappet driven: gas drives a small piston which smacks the bolt carrier assembly and drives it backwards. The bolt carrier assembly is reassuringly beefy, and most of the weight is above the bolt. Since there’s no gas flow required, the bolt itself is pretty thick and sturdy. It doesn’t have any obvious narrow points where stress issues might arise. Field stripping is easy, and requires no tools. Those of you who have seen pictures of the SCAR might note that the different shades of tan don’t match. This is by deliberate request of SOCOM, as it’s supposed to break up the outline of the rifle. I have no idea if this actually works.

SHOOTING THE SCAR 16S
It’s a light recoiling carbine. Duh. The FSC556 muzzle brake does a great job of helping you keep the rounds on target. Unsurprisingly, the recoil impulse is different from that of the AR-15, but it’s not unpleasant, like any other carbine. It handles well, and while shooting with the stock folded isn’t very practical, it puts a big grin on your face. I’ve found that even though I’m not using a thumb over barrel grip, the Magpul AFG is pretty comfortable on the handguard. The trigger snob in me would like a better trigger, but this one is serviceable. I’ve shot many worse triggers (mostly courtesy of Fishbreath).

VALUE COMPARISON
I’m not going to compare the SCAR to a quality entry level AR-15 like the M&P15 sport or the Colt LE6920. Those are much cheaper and still shoot 5.56mm, but don’t have any rails or quality furniture. No, such things aren’t necessary, but they’re nice. And I always think cross-market comparisons are stupid. If you’re thinking about a SCAR, you might be wondering how it compares to the premium AR-15 options. Even though we take away most of the price differential, the AR-15 has been out longer and is very popular, so it’s got a lot more development. There are a number of modular handguard options, which are lighter, but tend to get hot faster. Pretty classic tradeoff. The SCAR’s handguard is sturdier, since there’s no joint. But, you’re pretty much stuck with it. The AR has more ergo options, but the SCAR has a better manual of arms for troubleshooting. Overall, the AR-15 is a more mature platform, so if you only had to get one, I’d tell you to go that route. Probably. But the SCAR is way cooler, and if you already have an AR-15 (or several), or just like the SCAR, you can’t go wrong with one.

1.) Okay, I have a civvie semiauto-only one. Shut up, it’s still awesome.
2.) By “free”, I mean paid for by the parent service, not the SOCOM branch. E.g. paid for by the US Navy, but out of the big budget, not that of the SEALs.
3.) Remember that part where it’s NOT an AR-15?

Resurrected Weapons: ADATS

Posted by

The US Army has never been really big on air defense. This is mostly because the USAF has been really good at establishing and maintaining air superiority. However, in the 80s, the US Army decided to stop taking this for granted. They made the excellent Stinger MANPADS and the exceptional Patriot long range missile system. There’s a gap between these two systems, and to fill it, they collaborated with Canada on ADATS. This system entered Canadian service in 1989, but the US Army version ended up going overbudget and was cancelled1 as a part of those early-90s defense cuts that I love to hate. Let’s take a look at the system and see if it was any good.

The ADATS missile is a short-range system. It’s 2.05 meters long, 152mm in diameter, and has a finspan of 50cm. It weighs 51 kg. It’s capable of a top speed of Mach 3 and has a range of about 10 km. These numbers are similar to those of Tor, though Tor is rather larger and has a bit more range. In terms of tasking, both missiles have a similar primary role and guidance mechanism. Tor is radio command guided, but ADATS is laser beam riding. Similar guidance principles, different methods. Interestingly, ADATS makes more use of electro-optical targeting systems. Like TOR, it has a 3D air search radar with a range of 25 km that can track 10 targets simultaneously. ADATS uses an infrared imager to select targets and engage them. Tor has an electro-optical system as well, but it’s more or less a backup; normally Tor uses an engagement radar.

So Tor has better range, and ADATS can operate in “low profile” mode a bit better, since it’s less radar focused. The more obvious difference can be seen by looking at the warhead, or expanding the acronym. ADATS stats for Air Defense Anti Tank System, and it has a curious warhead that combines a fragmentation effect with a shaped charge effect. I’m honestly not sure why they did this–it adds a bunch of cost and gives a capability that, while cool, doesn’t seem to be prima facie useful all that often. Also, given how much armor MBTs tend to carry, I’m not sure how effective it would be on the off chance an enemy tank platoon stumbles upon a SHORAD unit. It seems like it would be easier to just issue some Javelin missiles to the air defense units for close-in protection. Or just have some regular Bradleys handy.

I’m also a little curious as to what the dual-effect warhead added to the cost of both the project and to the costs of the individual missiles themselves. Again, a simple fragmentation warhead seems like it would have helped a lot in terms of costs, but I can’t do a counterfactual comparison.

Which brings us to the verdict. This is hard. On the one hand, ADATS is a pretty cool system. On the other, I can’t help but think that a simpler, antiaircraft only system makes more sense. Plus, it’s currently competing with things like SL-AMRAAM, which near as I can reckon is roughly the same cost and provides proven kinematics, better range, and a fancy active seeker. SL-AMRAAM in the Bradley-ADATS vehicle/turret unit would be pretty cool though. There’s probably some cool wargaming one could do to see which guidance system would be more effective.

Verdict: Referred back to Ordnance Board for further analysis.2

1.) Why the Canadians got theirs but we didn’t is beyond me. Seems if it could enter Canadian service, the missile should have been fine. Yes, the Canadians integrated it on an M113, but putting that turret assembly on a Bradley hull isn’t too hard.
2.) See? I don’t always approve these.

Retro Air Force Procurement

Posted by

Here’s a change of pace from our regular procurement game. Let’s go back to a time before precision guidance was all the rage. A time when Saigon was still Saigon (albeit about to fall). A time when a favorite marching cadence was ‘Napalm Sticks to Kids’. A time when the Soviet Union was extant and terrifying and, yes, a time when Gerald Ford was in the white house. Welcome to the mid-1970s. Borgundy is still a reasonably well off European nation, a proud NATO member squaring off against the Warsaw Pact. We’d like a big new frontline fighter for the defense of our realm, and the best and latest in advanced western types are both American: the Grumman F-14A and the McDonnell Douglas F-15A. Let’s compare them, and see which comes away with the win. Remember, it’s 1975, so we can’t let any knowledge of how these two planes shook out affect our choice.

We’ll start with the Grumman offering, since it’s newer. The Grumman F-14 can be thought of as the ultimate fleet defense fighter. It’s built more or less to the same concept that gave birth to the fabulously successful F-4 Phantom II, but supersized, and uses the latest aerodynamics technology. It’s designed to have a long operating range and endurance, so it can fly a good distance out from the carrier, from where it will engage Soviet bombers before they can launch their missiles. To that end, it has plenty of fuel storage, high-tech swing wings for good speed and short-field performance, the most powerful fighter radar in the world (the AWG-9), and the longest range air to air missile in the world (the AIM-54 Phoenix). The Phoenix even has a fancy active seeker, unlike those lame semi-active seekers on the USAF standard Sparrow missile. Like the Phantom, the Tomcat has a two-man crew, one pilot, and one to operate the advanced radar system. It has the same TF30 turbofans as the F-111, however. Peformancewise, the F-14 was designed to match the Phantom as far as speed and maneuverability goes, but have a main armament that’s much longer ranged. And unlike the F-4, it does have a gun–the US Navy learned its lessons from Vietnam.

The McDonnell Douglas F-15 is designed to be the ultimate air superiority fighter, something the US Air Force hasn’t had in years. It is designed to be able to beat any current or projected future fighter type in air to air combat. The US Air Force took the Vietnam lessons to heart too. The Eagle is faster than the F-4, and is second only to the MiG-25 in top speed. It’s more agile overall than the F-4 or the F-14 because of it’s superior thrust to weight ratio and structural tolerance for more Gs. Like the F-14, it has a 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon with plenty of ammunition for a shootout or a strafing run. It does not carry the Phoenix missile, instead it carries Sidewinders and Sparrows, just like the Phantom. Unlike the Phantom and the Tomcat, the Eagle is a single seat fighter. It’s radar, while more advanced than the APQ-72 on the Phantom, is less powerful than the AWG-9 of the F-14. However, automation allows a single pilot to use it effectively. The F-15 was designed with offensive counter-air sweeps in mind, just like USAF F-4s flew in Vietnam.

So how do these two compare? Contractwise at about this time, they’re dead even. The Shah of Iran chose the F-14, the Israelis chose the F-15. Which will we choose? Well, the F-14 has the better sensor suite by far, with the AWG-9 being able to track 24 targets simultaneously, and attack up to six with Phoenix missiles. It even has look-down/shoot-down capability. The Tomcat also has an infrared search and track system mounted under the nose to help with target identification. While the F-15 also has a look-down/shoot-down capable radar in the APG-63, it has less range, simultaneous tracking capability, and simultaneous engagement capability. What it does have are a number of semiautomatic modes that make it very easy for a single crewman to employ in combat. The F-14 was designed to operate (more or less) on it’s own on extended patrols protecting a carrier battle group, or covering a Vietnam-style strike package from Yankee Station. The F-15 was designed with the significant USAF support assets of AWACS and jamming aircraft in sweeps to support strike packages, again, as in Vietnam. It also has a superior IFF system. Recent experience in the air war over Vietnam has demonstrated that beyond visual range methods are not as guaranteed as the missile manufacturers claim. The long-range AIM-54 was designed to kill bombers, and we are somewhat skeptical of its ability to effectively kill agile enemy fighters at range.

Vietnam demonstrated that air combat maneuvering capability is important, and the F-15 excels here. Part of this is because it’s a lighter, smaller plane. It carries less fuel. It’s structure is also rated to handle more G-force than that of the F-14. The F-15 also has far superior engines. In order to cut costs, the US Navy tried to re-use as much as it could from the colossal failure that was the F-111B, and that included the engines. However, not only does this give the F-14A a rather anemic thrust-to-weight ratio, but the TF30 is also very prone to compressor stalls at high angles of attack. It was never designed for a platform that would maneuver aggressively. And because the Tomcat’s engine nacelles are widely spaced, in order to provide room ot carry the big AIM-54 missiles, a compressor stall in one engine can lead to a flat spin, which is very difficult to recover from.1

The Eagle is the cheaper fighter to procure, but the numbers I found may be colored by its larger production run. It isn’t that much cheaper though; they’re certainly in the same price class (like a Porsche and a Lamborghini). The F-15 is significantly cheaper to operate and maintain. It has a number of design elements that simplify maintenance, and it doesn’t have the complicated variable geometry wings.2 This translates into increased availability for sorties, and (of course) more sorties for the money.

Famously, the F-15’s unofficial design motto was “Not a pound for air to ground”, though this is probably apocryphal. As seen by the minor changes needed for the F-15E, McDonnell Douglas certainly put in enough structural strength for ground attack missions. The Tomcat is also capable of carrying plenty of bombs, though neither the USN nor the USAF has bothered to integrate any air to ground weapons into the stores management system. So that’s a wash. As far as air to air armament goes, the biggest difference is the massive (but also very expensive) AIM-54 on the Tomcat. In terms of number of missiles, both planes field eight air to air missiles. In the ‘small advantages’ column, the F-15 carries more ammunition for its 20mm cannon, with 940 rounds to the F-14’s 675.

So, what is the final decision? We’re going for the Eagle. Better air combat capabilities against fighters and lower operating costs put the F-15 ahead of the F-14 for us. The offensive counter air mission is a much bigger need than a long range interceptor. And if the Soviets come at us hard, it will probably be by land, and we’ll want to neutralize their frontline aviation while bombing the living daylights out of their second echelon, reserves, and logistics. We’ll actually need another plane for the mud-moving; the Eagle is expensive enough without us trying to make it into a ground attack aircraft on our own.

1.) See Top Gun for a hands-on demonstration of a nasty flat spin. At least it’s not inverted. Or you could, but this is 1975, and it hasn’t been made yet.
2.) Stepping out of 1975 for a moment, we can see this reflected in that the USAF still operates F-15s, but the USN phased the F-14 out of service in 2006. But we have no way of knowing that in 1975 of course. 2006 is a long way off in the future; people probably commute in flying cars or something weird like that.

Resurrected Weapons: AGM-136 Tacit Rainbow

Posted by

A standard problem for a SEAD1 escort package is that if the enemy figures out what’s about to go down, they may shut off their SAM system radars, which makes it very hard to engage these radars. Switching off the radar has been as standard trick to spoil an antiradar2 missile (ARM) shot since the Vietnam War. Normally, one would expect SEAD aircraft to have to loiter over the target area, which is far from ideal. Loitering SEAD aircraft are vulnerable to fighters or short range IR guided missiles. An alternative concept was put forward in the ’80s with AGM-136.

AGM-136, which went by the unbearably dorky name ‘Tacit Rainbow’, was designed to provide an ARM that could loiter. Built on a cruise-missile type frame, it could be carried in the bomb bay of a B-52 or on the pylons of a wide variety of multirole fighter and strike aircraft. There was also a variant to be launched from the M270 MLRS. The idea was to use these reasonably low-observable platforms en masse against an enemy air defense network. If they found targets, they would seek out and destroy them like any other ARM. Otherwise, they could loiter in the target area waiting, making sure that the enemy did not switch on their SAM radars to engage the incoming strike package.

Like many advanced weapons of the late Cold War, the AGM-136 hit a number of cost overruns, because it had to fly in a preprogrammed area, recognize, and prioritize hostile radar emitters and then engage them. It was eventually cancelled in 1991. Advances in cheap microelectronics since the late 80s, plus the abundance of cheap GPS receivers, would make the AGM-136 a much easier development project today. It’s a nice supplement to EW aircraft like the EA-18G Growler, and would greatly help the survivability of strike packages while not requiring a correspondingly large investment in specialized platforms. With the increasing proliferation of higher-end air defense systems (even Iran has S-300s now), our strike packages will need all the help they can get. A platform like the AGM-136 is a great way to extend the survivability of non-stealthy platforms like the Viper or the Super Hornet.

The one thing that we’d like to investigate further is the ground-launched variant. In general, we would question whether the system would have enough fuel to fly from forward artillery positions to the target area and loiter while a strike package does its business. Near the front lines, we would not expect much in the way of powerful, long range air defense systems, simply because they would have to move quite a bit. On the other hand, they might prove to be cheap insurance over annoyingly potent short range systems like SA-15.

Verdict: Approved by Borgundy War Department Procurement Board, pending a rename.

1) Suppression of Enemy Air Defense
2) More often this is rendered Antiradiation missile, but I always thought Antiradar sounded better, and takes less explaining to the non-expert reader. Plus it’s easier to type.

Terminated Weapons: TOW

Posted by

Here’s another one for the chopping block. The BGM-71, Tube-launched Optically-sighted Wire-guided (TOW) missile. It’s been a classic antitank missile of the United States and its allies since 1972. It is time for it to go.

The TOW was a solid performer in its day. It’s killed plenty of tanks, and its received plenty of upgrades. Current versions have either a tandem-warhead, or a flyover-top-attack flight profile, with explosively formed penetrator warheads. So they’re reasonably capable of dealing with modern tanks with their fancy explosive reactive armor (or tons of composites). All that said, they’re obsolete and it’s time to give them the boot.

The TOW is heavy. Modern versions weigh 22.6 kg (just shy of 50 lbs) and that’s only the missile. You also have to add in the weight of the launch tube, its tripod mount and the sighting unit, which comes to about 93 kilos (204.6 lbs) altogether. So it’s really pushing the term ‘man portable’. Plus, it still uses SACLOS wire guidance. A Javelin missile has a lighter launcher and is fire and forget, so the missile team can move after launching. Which is good, because they’re position is painfully obvious due to the massive cloud of missile exhaust. Even if the team is killed, the Javelin will still track the target; killing a SACLOS missile crew (or even getting them to flinch) by shooting back at them is a great way to spoil their missile shot. Another bonus feature for the Javelin is that it doesn’t have a massive backblast, so it can be fired from enclosed spaces, or if there’s some stuff behind the missile that you’d rather not expose to hot exhaust (dry grass comes to mind). Even though TOW has a range advantage on Javelin, the Javelin is still a much more effective weapon system for the combat infantryman. The range limitations of Javelin are due to limitations of the command launch unit, not the missile itself; we can probably expect Block 2 improvements to rectify this shortcoming. Plus, depending on the theater of operations, long sightlines may not be available for this to become an issue. The Javelin’s range limitations are unlikely to be an issue in cities or in the forests of Central Europe.

The heavy TOW makes a lot more sense on a ground vehicle, where the weight matters a lot less. Here though, it faces stiff competition from Javelin (and Spike). The fire-and-forget capability of these missiles allows them to move after launching, which is nice if you’re shooting from something thin-skinned and an enemy tank has taken notice of the massive launch signature. While guiding a TOW, a launching vehicle is forced to be immobile. First, the TOW tracker isn’t really set up to handle a moving launch platform and a moving missile in its target track. It is designed around a fixed point of reference. While a vehicle could move slowly and not screw up the guidance too badly, this won’t help them live much, and may cause the wire to snag on some obstacle as the missile attempts to correct for launch platform movement and the target track. Breaking the wire gives you a rather slow rocket, which isn’t overly helpful either.

What about on helicopters? Aerial platforms were a very common user of the TOW missile in Vietnam and elsewhere. However, we now have the vastly superior Hellfire missile, which uses either semi-active laser homing or millimeter-wave active radar. The active radar version (‘Longbow Hellfire’) gives us the cool fire-and-forget capability of the Javelin or the Spike, which lets the helicopter switch targets or evade enemy fire. Even the semi-active laser homing version has advantages over the TOW, though. The Hellfire missile has about twice the range of the TOW, travels about half again as fast as the TOW, and even with the SALH version, multiple targets can be engaged very rapidly. Hellfire variants also have alternative warheads, including versions with fragmentation-augmented shaped charge warheads and thermobaric warheads. This means that the Hellfire missile family can engage more types of targets on the battlefield.

For even more ways to kill tanks, we can look to the UK’s Brimstone missile. This missile is roughly Hellfire sized, and can be fired from helicopters or fixed wing aircraft, even fast movers. It distinguishes itself by being able to fly to a designated area and seek out armor using an active radar seeker. From a rotary winged platform, it has almost three times the range of TOW. And, unlike TOW, it can be fired from fixed wing aircraft (for even more range).

So there we go. TOW really doesn’t fit in anymore. It was a good system in the 70s, and upgrades did a good job of keeping it relevant (unlike the Harpoon). But there are contemporaries that fill its roles better now, so it’s time for TOW to tap out.

Resurrected Weapons: CBU-98/B

Posted by

Here’s a new segment that’ll highlight some old weapons that never made it to the big time. I’ll also give my verdict of whether or not I approve of it as a possible system for Borgundy. Our first weapon is a runway denial cluster munition, the CBU-98/B. The idea here was to combine two other, proven effective systems in one cool bomb.

The first of those is the French Durandal bomb. This bomb was designed with a parachute to slow it’s fall as it oriented itself groundward. Then, a rocket motor would fire and drive the penetrator warhead into the runway surface before detonating, to maximize the destruction. It’s a pretty cool weapon designed to put really big holes in runways. Runways are great targets, because you can’t move them, you can’t hide them, and you can’t really armor them. Perfect! Except that runways, being a big strip of asphalt or concrete, aren’t all that hard to repair. The key is usually making lots of widespread destruction.

That’s where the second weapon comes in, the British HB 876 mine. Dropped from Hades cluster bombs (a BL755 variant) or from JP223 dispensers, these small mines are scattered about a runway. They have a nifty dual effect warhead: one part is a Misznay-Schardin Effect warhead that generates an explosively formed penetrator, and the other part is a pretty standard fragmentation jacket. So it combines antivehicle and antipersonnel effects into one cool mine. The bottom has a self-righting device to insure that it deploys appropriately.

The CBU-98/B was designed to put these two together in one bomb. First, for runway demolition, it contained eight BLU-109/B penetrator submunitions. They function exactly like the Durandal, except are significantly smaller, having 2.95 kg HE warheads instead of Durandal’s 115 kg (total) twin charges. But hey, you can put a bunch of them in one bomb. Additionally, the CBU-98/B also contained 24 HB 876 mines to cause problems for combat engineers trying to repair the runway. The whole package went in a standard SUU-64/B dispenser and weight about 385 kg or so.

So what do we think of this weapon? We really like it. Putting runways out of action is an important mission, and we do like penetrator weapons and cluster effects. They have the bonus effect of pissing off the hippies, which is good. Some questions of cost remain, as do whether or not the increased amount of damage when compared to a comparable sortie of more conventional bombs is significant enough to warrant the procurement. My instincts tell me this is probably the case. You could get more destruction with a bunch of bigger conventional bombs with unitary warheads, but a set of CBU-98s are going to take up fewer pylons and weigh less. It would also be a useful cruise missile warhead, saving aircraft the dangerous and difficult runway overflight mission.

Verdict: Approved by Borgundy War Department Procurement Board.

Resurrected Weapons: AGM-124 Wasp

Posted by

The cold war ended before a lot of nifty weapons could get into production. Like many of them, the AGM-124 Wasp was intended to kill Soviet tank forces and reduce the margin of superiority that the Red Army enjoyed. In addition to never throwing anything away (like that crazy relative you have), the Soviets tended to attack in echelons. Since they had numerical superiority (admittedly, partially due to having a ton of old stuff lying around), they could attack in a broad front, and then have another broad front waiting to hit you again, and they still had reserves to throw at you. NATO’s plan was to counter asymmetrically, and they had a wide variety of projects under way in the 80s. The American ones were known under the umbrella “Assault breaker,” and one of them is going to get looked at here.

The AGM-124 Wasp was intended to be used in a swarm. Beat numbers with numbers. It was a small, lightweight missile, to be carried in big pods beneath ground attack aircraft and lobbed in an area en masse. From there, the Wasp’s millimeter wave radar seeker would take over, hunting down targets and destroying them. Data is spotty; I’m not sure if it had a tandem warhead or not, or if the idea was to hit the Russian tanks with enough missiles so as to not have to care about whatever ERA the Russians had mounted. Also, in the 80s, fewer Soviet tanks had ERA mounted.

What do we think of this weapon now? If anything, it’s an even better idea. Modern sensors being what they are, millimeter wave seekers and tandem shaped charges are a bit cheaper, and avionics have improved to where feeding data on a target area is a lot easier. Preprogrammed target data wouldn’t be needed to the extent that it would in the 80s. If made today, the Wasp would be a cheaper, spammable version of Brimstone, and that’d be awesome. I’d probably go for a tandem warhead, but don’t need to go too fancy with these. Keep it simple. Keep it cheap. Load them up in pods under your multirole aircraft of choice and let fly against staging areas. This is probably well beyond the usual “Yes, buy” sort of thing and into the “Shut up and take my money” realm. At least if you’re worried about enemy armor.

…are you not?

Verdict: Approved by Borgundy War Department Procurement Board

Terminated Weapons: Harpoon

Posted by

At Fishbreath’s suggestion, I’ve decided to combine some of my resurrection posts with some terminations. Weapons that really should have been cancelled a long time ago, that are in desperate need of replacement. To use a sports metaphor, if I’m calling some up from the minors, I should relegate some others back from the majors. First on the chopping block: the Harpoon antiship missile.

Harpoon has been the western standard antiship missile since its introduction in 1977. It’s got submarine launched, ship launched, and air launched versions, a good active-radar seeker, and you can fit it on most anything. Great. And in the late 70s, it was a good weapon. It gave the warships of the USN some much needed anti-surface punch, and you could retrofit it onto almost any platform.

Looking at it right now, the harpoon sucks.

There are plenty of current market competitors that are better. The harpoon is subsonic; there are plenty of competitors (e.g. SS-N-22 Sunburn and SS-N-27 Sizzler) that are supersonic at least for the terminal phase to reduce reaction time. Is it long ranged? No, the Harpoon is almost painfully short range. Again, the Russians have some really cool long range missiles like the SS-N-19 that have tons of range. Oh, and the Harpoon isn’t stealthy either. Nope.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. This isn’t me hating on weapons for not being new. There are plenty of weapon systems that I like that are rather long in the tooth, but have appropriate upgrades to stay current. The C-130, B-52, M-16, and AIM-9 have all received upgrades that keep them useful and competitive with more modern contemporaries. The B-52 and M-16 are particularly good examples of this, having beaten a number of attempts to replace them. There’s nothing wrong with an old weapon per se, but we have to keep it relevant and competitive with contemporaries. Upgrade or replace. Up or out. It’s not that hard.

Let’s look at some weapon systems that we could use to replace the harpoon. Two come to mind. One is the Brahmos, a joint Russian-indian antiship missile system. It’s launchable from surface ships, aircraft, trucks, and submarines. It has an operational range of 300-500 km. Even if we take the low end, that’s more than twice the quoted range of the Harpoon (“more than 124 km”). Oh, and it can go faster than Mach 2.8 terminally. Pretty awesome missile. It is, however, rather heavy at 2,500 kg for the air-launched version and 3,000 kg for the other versions. The Harpoon weighs a svelte 691 kg. So the Brahmos isn’t a perfect replacement; there are ships that we might want to give antiship capability to that can’t fit the big Russo-Indian missile. And Fishbreath will surely start complaining if I only choose a Russian system as a Harpoon replacement, and get upset if I demand bigger ships. Fishbreath likes his wee ships, you see.

An even better Harpoon replacement on a one-for-one basis is the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM to you acronym-loving cool kids). The NSM is lighter than Harpoon at 410 kg. It’s range of 185 km is better than Harpoon (at least as far as quoted range goes). It’s got GPS integration. There’s a version that fits in the internal bays of our F-35s, which gets even more range (about 290 km or so). Most importantly, it’s stealthy. So the enemy will have less warning to react to it. It’s also cleared for a bunch of aircraft, ships, and land based vehicles already. Big gain right here as far as stealth goes, since the Russians have finally wised up and mounted CIWS on their ships. This is important, as NATO ships don’t usually carry enough Harpoons to overwhelm point defense systems.

There are a couple of experimental weapon systems of note that might be worth pursuing, namely the Anglo-French Perseus and Lockheed Martin’s LRASM (an antiship variant of the AGM-158 JASSM-ER). Both of these are stealthy, have good range, and are vertical launch capable. I prefer the LRASM a bit more since it’s based on an existing missile platform. Neither is available yet, but we’re content to get some NSMs now and wait for the fancy new developments from MEADS and LockMart for VLS tubes or longer range aerial strike missions.

Oh, and if we needed VLS integration to give our DDGs a big punch, or needed a lot more range than NSM, we could always go buy some BGM-109Bs again. Tons of range, fits in a VLS Tube. Another good choice while you wait for the fancy new stuff, and you can at least fit enough of them on a DDG to have a decent chance of overwhelming the air defenses of an opposing battlegroup.

I’m sure one last objection is coming from some of you. “But wait, Parvusimperator!” I hear you say. “What if I believe that I control the sea, and don’t really care about antiship missiles.” Well then. First, I would tell you that you’re an idiot. Even during the height of the British Empire, they maintained their position by having a navy stronger than the next two navies put together. You maintain your dominance by being able to crush all opposition, not by taking it for granted and going through some stupid hippie draw-down. But if you really didn’t care, no antiship missiles is lighter and cheaper than a battery of old crappy ones. Though, again, this is stupid. Antiship missiles are good.

Pistol Project Plan: Rock the Glock

Posted by

I’m a Glock guy. The first handgun I ever got, after getting a stupidly-hard to get NY State pistol permit was a Glock 19 Gen4. And I love it. Since then, I’ve gotten a bunch of other Glocks. I’ve got a Glock 17 Gen4, and I wanted to make this my latest project gun. First, let’s talk a little Glock history, and why I like them so much.

Gaston Glock designed his pistol to meet the needs of the Austrian Army for a new service handgun to replace the Walther P38. Gaston brought in a number of pistol experts to help him with his design; he was not a pistolsmith by training but brought extensive experience in advanced synthetic polymers, which would go into the construction of the pistol. The fancy glass-reinforced plastics used in the frame of the Glock pistol helped drive costs down, and since there are only four small points of metal-on-metal contact between the slide and the frame, Glocks don’t require much lube. Gaston also introduced ferritic nitrocarburizing as an anticorrosion treatment. The result was a pistol whose reliability and durability would become legend. The Glock 17 (so called because it was the seventeenth design), beat out the HK P7M8, HK P7M13, HK P9S, SiG-Sauer P220, SiG-Sauer P226, Beretta 92SF-B, an updated FN Hi-Power, and the Steyr GB. The Glock 17 was also accepted into Norwegian and Sweedish service shortly after winning the Austrian competition. The US DoD was even interested in trialing the pistol in their competition, but the DoD requirements would have meant retooling production in a short timeframe, so Glock declined.

So that’s why everyone loves the Berreta 92, right? The US Army called that gun the M9, and it became the most popular 9mm semiautomatic in Ameri–oh, wait. No, it didn’t. How did Glock do it? Once they had a whole bunch of NATO member military contracts in the bag, they went after the American law enforcement market with gusto. And their timing couldn’t be better. See, it was the 80s, and it was starting to dawn on the police forces of America that six rounds of .38 in a wheelgun and another six in a speedloader in your pocket wasn’t quite enough firepower1. Officers were looking to trade up, and Glock was ready with a super reliable pistol that was tolerant of neglect and could be made way cheaper than the steel-framed competition. Plus, Glock (possibly to overcome the language barrier or something), set up a pretty savvy marketing department, sending plenty of friendly reps to departments. Many of their reps were former police officers, and they brought tons of new pistols to try out on the range, along with plenty of swag. They offered low cost guns and top dollar for trades to appease the accountants, and were easy to get in touch with. So they captured market share in a big way. Currently, something like 65% of US Law Enforcement uses Glocks, including the FBI. Glock pistols are also super popular among the competitive shooter crowd, being the most popular brand by far at USPSA matches.

Glock currently makes pistols in about any reasonable pistol caliber you could want, and a couple oddball ones like 10mm Auto, and they’ve updated their pistols to bring new features to the consumer. Their current models are the Gen4 line, and it brings a bunch of notable improvements. Let’s take a look, and I’ll compare the Glocks to my M&Ps where appropriate. The Gen4s have backstraps now, with two different sizes (medium and large, “small” is accomplished sans backstrap), and they also have two backstraps with a beavertail, in case you get slidebite. Or you may just find those suit you better. Some people (including Fishbreath) aren’t really a fan of Glock’s grip angle. I personally don’t really care, though I’ve actually found myself getting back on target faster with Glocks when compared to other polymer framed handguns, so maybe it helps me keep muscle tension or something. In any case, you can change it now. The backstraps aren’t quite as good at changing the gun size as the M&P ones are, as they do nothing about the girth of the grip. This is not a problem for me, as I have large hands (I use the ‘large’ size backstraps). Others may find this an issue.

The Gen4 Glocks also have introduced a new texture on the grip. It’s much more aggressive than the old texture, or than the texture on the M&P grip, and I find this a significant win for the Glock. I like grippy, aggressively textured guns, and Glocks currently oblige me. If I wanted, I could have the grip stippled, but the current Gen4 texture serves me fine. It’s also not so aggressive that it will tear your hands apart after a long day of shooting.

Glock sights are, frankly, awful. They’re the white-dot-in-a-U design, which I guess is popular in Europe. I do not like them. They are cheap, and are bad enough to make some kind of sight replacement almost a requirement. This might almost be a service to the consumer, as there are many far better sight options out there. In this case, I’ll be getting my slide milled for an RMR, because red dots are awesome, and my M&P proved how good the setup was. If I wanted something else, I could get it for a Glock.

Ubiquity is something that’s great about Glocks. Anything you want for them, you can get for them. Holsters and sights and other accessories come to Glock first, because they’re so common. And Glock magazines, being made of metal-lined plastic, are stupid cheap, and easy to find on sale. More mags is always good, because magazines are a disposable commodity item. Mags wear out. Stock up.

While Glock beats out the M&P in terms of ubiquity, the M&P still takes second place, and is by no means bad (Seriously, compare prices of M&P40 mags with those for, say, a PX4). However, the Glock soundly beats the M&P on the stock trigger front. The M&P stock trigger, as I’ve mentioned, is a mushy mess. The Glock trigger is perfectly reasonable, especially considering that it has to be safe. There’s takeup, which is decently smooth. There’s some mush here, but it’s not altogether bad. Break is somewhere between the crisp and rolling variety. Finally, the reset is crisp and offers both audible and tactile feedback. The Glock trigger is not as good as a 1911 trigger, full stop. On the other hand, it doesn’t have a manual safety like a 1911, and it’s a lot cheaper than any actually worthwhile 1911. Technically, it’s a very light double action only trigger, that’s about two-thirds of the way precocked. Some trigger weight and resistance comes from the fact that you’re still doing a little bit of the cocking work on the striker with your trigger pull. Despite the downsides, the Glock trigger is firmly in the ‘good enough’ camp, and is more or less the standard for comparison.

There are a ton of fancy light competition triggers out there, as well as some parts to make the pull heavier if you want it to feel like an old school double-action only revolver (like the NYPD). I don’t much like making my triggers worse, and I shoot the stock one fine. Since I like to carry most of my Glocks, I won’t switch to a lighter trigger. The stock one is safe. I may try one of the fancy competition kits on my Glock 34 though.

On the M&P, I ended up swapping out the mag release for an extended one. The Glock Gen4 comes with an extended magazine release which is about perfect. It’s long enough to be easily pushed without switching your grip, but short enough that you won’t accidentally trip it when it’s in the holster. It’s a good compromise between a giant competition button and the tiny things that usually come on handguns. I see no reason to change it.

The Glock slide stop is a touch smaller than the one on the M&P. It is not ambidextrous, which isn’t as nice. Not shooting lefty most of the time, I don’t care. And I can always trip it with my trigger finger or slingshot the slide if I’m shooting weak-side. I will say that despite the minor-looking change on the factory “extended” slide stop that comes on the Glock 34 (really, it’s more of a reshaping than anything else), it’s actually a big improvement over the stock one for manipulations. I’ll probably get that upgrade for the rest of my Glocks.

Okay, I know you’re dying to know: which do I like more? That’s tough, but I think the Glock wins out overall. The stock trigger is better, even after applying the upgrade kit to the M&P. There are a lot more possible trigger upgrades for the Glocks, even though that’s not really my thing. Plus, I like the grippier frame better.

1. See: the 1980 Norco shootout and the 1986 Miami shootout, which I’ll probably do a write-up of someday.

Parvusimperator reviews The Bureau Gun

Posted by

It’s quite possibly the most tested 1911 ever. It’s certainly one of the most sought after ones. And, it’s even a bit of issued kit for the FBI’s legendary Hostage Rescue Team, 87 years after it was originally designed. It defies classification: it’s handmade by the Springfield Armory Custom Shop’s smiths, but comes with a very specific list of features. Want different ones? Then it’s not a Professional, and doesn’t get the cool serial number prefix. Or the knowledge that this pistol is built to pass one of the most ludicrous challenges ever presented to a modern handgun.

Background: The Challenge
When the HRT went looking for a sidearm, they put a ridiculous set of requirements in the RFP. They asked for a Pistol, Caliber .45, Model 1911. They wanted a 4.5 lb trigger pull (originally 5-6.5, later revised down). They wanted a warranty for 50,000 rounds. They demanded that the pistol be capable of firing three consecutive ten-shot groups from a Ransom rest no larger than 1.5 inches at 25 yards using the FBI’s .45 round of choice, Remington Golden Saber. The pistol then had to be fired for 20,000 rounds and undergo a reduction of not more than 15%. The pistol could not have a stoppage in 2,500 rounds. Only one manufacturer could make this happen–the Springfield Armory Custom Shop.

The Pistol
So what are the other features the FBI got in it’s pistol sans pareil? A classy matte black finish. A GI-type guide rod, none of that silly full length stuff. A skeletonized, commander-style hammer, made from hard, tool-steel. A skeletonized trigger. 20 lpi checkering on the front- and backstrap. A 5″ match grade barrel. An 18.5 lb. recoil spring. And the sort of supertight hand fitting that would make Les Baer proud. Also, the expected Novak three-dot tritium night sights.

Picking up the pistol, the first thing one notices is the 20 lpi checkering. It is sharp. It does not let go. You grip the gun, and she grips you right back. Some might not like this. Some might say they don’t need a pistol that may as well have a barbed grip. Those people are not me. I like a very aggressive texture on my grips, but if you prefer your hands not be heavily callused, you may wish to use gloves. The beavertail grip safety works as intended, and I haven’t been able to get it to not engage with any sort of weird, half-assed grip that I’ve tried. The thumb safety goes on and off crisply, and is small. Small so you won’t bump it accidentally. Small so it won’t dig into your side when you carry the gun. I’m fine with this.

The trigger. Oh, the trigger. This was made for insufferable trigger snobs like me. This is why people say that the 1911 is ‘God’s gift to gunnies’. It is so wonderful. It has the tiniest bit of takeup, and then a crisp break. Insert metaphors about breaking a glass rod here. It’s fantastic–and this from a guy who’s spent many hours with the finely-tuned hair-trigger of an olympic-grade air pistol. Unlike that, this pistol does not have a hair trigger. It will not go off if you brush your finger on it. But it will go off with just a little bit of pressure, so don’t be thinking about shooting until you want to be shooting.

Fit and Finish
Tight. Really tight. Between a lockup tighter than a bank vault and that 18.5 pound recoil spring, the first time racking the slide will make you question your manhood. It’s okay. Grunt. Curse. Breathe. You’ll get it. And no, you’re not getting the Pro apart without the use of that bushing wrench. That’s why they gave you one. It’ll loosen up some with use. It’s okay. That’s the point. It’s supposed to be like that. Go run your new gun. Your hands will thank you, and you’ll enjoy it.

The Black-T finish on the gun is classy. It’s subtle. It’s not inherently gorgeous like the carbonic blue on my old Model 29, but it’s very nice. It doesn’t really have imperfections, just a smooth matte finish that is designed to take some abuse. So what are we waiting for, let’s go shoot it!

Shooting the Professional
A crisp 4 pound trigger on gun that weighs somewhat north of two pounds loaded? Yeah, this gun makes you look good. This gun makes you look like you know what you’re doing, even if you suck. It’s all steel construction means that it soaks up recoil from the big, beefy .45 rounds. And one of the few benefits of the single stack design is that it fits everybody’s hands. And that trigger makes you want to keep shooting. It does however expect and demand that you have good trigger control. Try to live up to the Professional rollmark on the slide. Breathe. Fundamentals. It will magnify any errors you have in your technique, and put them on display for all to see. And you’ll come to appreciate that 20 lpi checkering, since it means the gun goes absolutely nowhere, despite firing big .45 rounds downrange. Before long, you’ll wish the magazines held more.

The Professional comes with six magazines, made by Metalform. 1911s being what they are, there are many different magazine designs out there for them. They only hold seven rounds, because seven round 1911 magazines are more reliable than the alternatives in general. This is as good a time as any to bring up a few annoyances of modern 1911s. Many different magazine variations means you need to find the one(s) your gun likes. And you need to keep an eye on them, because they do wear out. Being steel framed, 1911s run best with lubrication.

At this price point, those are about all the annoyances that there are. The price sucks, but if ever you got what you paid for, this is it. It ran great from the moment it left the box. The Professional is a joy to shoot.