Os brasileiros que foram à LAAD 2011 foram surpresos com estes projectos e de forma geral ficaram bastante contentes com os mesmos.
Mas quando ainda vemos as Forças Armadas equipadas com G-3, Galil e a “fantástica” SIG-543, estamos falados.
Os Rangers-CIOE parece que também a usam.
Citação de: "Cabeça de Martelo"Os brasileiros que foram à LAAD 2011 foram surpresos com estes projectos e de forma geral ficaram bastante contentes com os mesmos.Surpresos ou surpreendidos? .
CitarMas quando ainda vemos as Forças Armadas equipadas com G-3, Galil e a “fantástica” SIG-543, estamos falados.Que força está equipada com essa SIG-543?A PSP tem espingardas Barrett (não me recordo de que modelo).
Army May Field More Powerful Sniper RifleThe Army is moving closer to arming all of its sharpshooters with the XM2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle, a powerful new sniper rifle that can reach more than 50 percent farther than the weapon currently in use. The XM2010 first hit Army ranges late last year, and the service's top gear buyer says it is already targeting bad guys in Afghanistan. The new rifle takes some of the parts of the current Remington-built M24 bolt-action sniper rifle -- which has been in the Army's inventory since the late 1980s -- and marries them with an updated stock, magazine and rail system.But in a major shift brought on by experience in Afghanistan, the XM2010 is being built to fire the .300 Winchester Magnum round, which can hit targets up to 1,200 meters away. The current M24 -- much the same as the civilian Remington Model 700 -- fires a 7.62mm round that can reach targets about 800 meters away. "We're trying to reach those extended ranges in Afghanistan … so [snipers] can reach out and hold that enemy out farther," said Brig. Gen. Pete Fuller in an April 14 interview with military reporters. Fuller went on to say that the success of the XM2010 in Afghanistan caused the Army to consider fielding the longer-range rifle to all snipers servicewide. "There is ongoing discussion in the Army right now whether we are going to 'pure fleet' the whole Army with this capability," Fuller said. "I believe the Army will go in that direction" but a final decision hasn't been made, he said. The Army will continue to procure the semi-auto M110 sniper rifle for shorter ranges and urban engagements, officials say. In September, the Army signed a contract with Remington Arms to "rebuild" about 250 M24s into the XM2010 rifle for use in Afghanistan. The contract left open the possibility that the service could buy up to 3,600 rifles if it received the funds. The Army was concerned that the M24 fell short in typical engagement ranges in Afghanistan, where Taliban fighters tend to ambush U.S. troops from high-altitude escarpments just beyond the lethal range of current Soldier arms. The bolt-action XM2010 includes a five-round magazine, an adjustable, folding stock and enough rail space to accommodate a variety of optics, designators and illumination tools, the Army says.According to Army weapons buyers, the original program was spearheaded by Rep. Mike Arcuri, a Democrat congressman whose district includes the Remington Ilion Firearms plant near Utica. Arcuri was defeated by Republican Richard Hanna last year. "The Army has about 2,500 M24s in its inventory so there is enough headroom in the current contract to provide all sniper teams an XM2010 capability if the Army ultimately approves the decision and allocates the budget to do so," a PM Soldier weapons representative said in a statement.
Citação de: "Trafaria"CitarMas quando ainda vemos as Forças Armadas equipadas com G-3, Galil e a “fantástica” SIG-543, estamos falados.Que força está equipada com essa SIG-543?A PSP tem espingardas Barrett (não me recordo de que modelo).FOEComandos
O que é que há ai de novidade que eu nao tenha reparado?
Army Plan to Halt US Tank Production Draws Fire in CongressBy DEVIN DWYER The Army's M1 Abrams tank has careened across battlefields in U.S. combat operations since 1980. But now the 75-ton, American-made icon is at the center of the federal budget debate, with the Pentagon calling for production to halt and Congress determined to say no. The Army says taxpayers could save $1.3 billion in the defense spending bill for fiscal year 2012 if lawmakers agreed to temporarily shutter the nation's only tank production facility in Lima, Ohio, for at least three years, starting in 2013. The closure would be the first cessation of U.S. tank production since World War II. "We've got a very fit and complete fleet that we'll have at this time. And that's what has caused us to stop buying something that we no longer need," Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, the Army's deputy chief of staff, told a Senate committee last month. But a bipartisan group of lawmakers, under pressure from the tank's producer, General Dynamics Land Systems, says the military has it all wrong. One hundred thirty-seven House members argued Friday in a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh that the proposal would dangerously harm the country's "industrial base," forcing highly-skilled workers to go elsewhere and adding unnecessary re-training and certification costs to the taxpayers' tab. "Our industrial base cannot be turned on and off like a light switch," said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and co-signed the letter. Mauricio Lima/AFP/Getty ImagesA U.S. Army M1A1 Abrams tank rolls through the streets of downtown of Tikrit, Iraq, Dec. 16, 2003. The Army wants lawmakers save $1.3 billion in the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2012 by temporarily closing the Lima, Ohio, Abrams facility for at least three years, starting in 2013. "It's always more expensive than the initial estimates," said Daniel Goure, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, a defense industry think tank, of the Army's proposal. "As for the workers, this is an extraordinarily experienced and specialized crew. You can't take 'Joe the Welder' out of the auto body shop and put him on the tank line in a day when they start back up," he said. Company officials say 250 workers at the Lima plant and thousands of others at more than 500 businesses in the tank equipment supply chain would be forced to find other work. "We simply cannot shut down this plant and expect them to wait around for it to start up again," said Rep. Michael Turner, whose district is adjacent to the Abrams plant. But with U.S. defense spending expected to top $700 billion this year -- twice the amount spent 10 years ago -- critics say programs such as the Abrams tank line shouldn't be immune from cuts to help trim the federal deficit. "At a time when the defense budget obviously needs to go south, not north, only a cynic would say it's predictable that Congress won't cancel a program the Department of Defense says it doesn't need," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, a think tank. Lt. Gen. Lennox said because the military's fleet of tanks is an average of just four years old, the military won't need technical upgrades or new equipment until at least 2016, when the plant could reopen. The Army estimated closing the plant and reopening it later would not cost more than $800 million, while keeping the plant running at a minimal level would cost roughly $2.1 billion. "The amount that we've been given, that it would take to keep those plants open, is extraordinarily enough of or put our scarce resources against something else," Lennox said of the funds. The House Armed Services Committee, which is drafting the defense spending bill for 2012, has included $272 million to keep Abrams tank production going through Sept. 30, 2013. The bill still needs to pass the Senate and get signed into law by the president. The funds would churn out roughly 60 tanks and keep thousands of workers on the job, supporters say. "Politicians are so ineffectual that the only way they feel they can appeal to voters is by bringing home the pork," Wheeler said. "These tanks are eminently useful. I'm not against them. But we've got plenty, and many upgraded ones as well."
