Thursday, June 26, 2025

"What's Wrong with Woke Culture in the Entertainment Industry?"

 I had ripped this off from Quora from an online friend on Quora, from "Murphy Barrett".  Nice guy, well spoken and knows his stuff.  I thought the answer was a good answer to the question.


Two things, mainly. But first we must study the Greeks a bit.

Much of the West is steeped in Christian thinking. Some things are good, some are bad. Pride, for instance, is a Sin if you’re Christian. Not so, the Greeks. To the Greeks, Pride is a virtue. One ought to have pride in oneself and one’s works. It’s healthy, normal, and good. But an excess of pride, now that is a vice, known as hubris. It is virtue taken too far.

In the same way, Egalitarianism is a virtue, and Woke is that virtue taken to vice.

Woke media is characterized, for instance, by the ever-trumpeting of The Message to the detriment of the story.

Consider, in Old Trek, within the context of the story itself, Lieutenant Uhura was not remarkable for being a woman or a black, despite being a bridge officer. She wasn’t the first or the best at anything. She was simply a very competent and capable officer amongst many. Nor did anybody bat an eyelash at black captains and admirals. And why should they? Clearly, in the world of Star Trek, skin color is no more remarkable than hair color. That was how Old Trek taught Egalitarianism.

New Trek, on the other hand, cannot help but put the story on the back seat as it pounds you over the head with the first black this and the openly whatever that. New Trek would have you ignore a person’s merits and focus instead on what they are, not who they are. New Trek would spurn MLK jr as a racist for his wonderful dream.

As a lifelong atheist, woke media has much the same tone, to me, as the fire-and-brimstone preacher. As those obnoxiously badly written Christian movies where the right answer is always god.

The second problem is itself a compound problem, that being arrogance and lack of imagination. Wokesters, by and large, don’t have good stories to tell. They have nothing original, nothing universal. So many woke stories are merely personal experience writ large, as if wokies cannot empathize with anybody different than themselves.

Combine this with the arrogance to believe they can, and have the right to, take someone else’s work and “fix” it. Make it “more inclusive”. Update it for “modern audiences”. But one does not improve the Sistine Chapel by the use of finger-paints.

(Yes yes, I know that’s Christian imagery. It’s a masterpiece, get off my back.)

Thus, bereft of original ideas and arrogant enough to believe they know better than everyone (bit of Hubris there, no?) wokies appropriate existing, beloved IPs, and “fix them” in the manner of an amateur restoring a great piece of art.

Amateur restoration botches Jesus painting in Spain

And the results are just as horrible and depressing. We are left with media that isn’t entertainment, but a lecture. What’s more, it starts to feel all same-same. “Which show with the queer black trans-lesbians is this?”

This even shows up physically in media. Quite a few woke fantasy shows look all the same. It’s like they pull from the same casing pool, even when doing so is actively detrimental to the story. I recall the Wheel of Time show, where it’s a specific plot point that the protagonist is clearly an outsider because he doesn’t look like anyone else in the sleepy mountain village. But thanks to rainbow casting, nobody in that village looks like anybody else. Every backwater hamlet has as much diversity as a major trade port. In the second Game of Thrones and the Witcher spinoff, the architecture was all same-same too, thus it was very hard to tell where anyone was just by looking.

The point being that, ironically, woke casting and writing leads to this homogenized oatmeal of bland shows that all look and taste the same. It has no color, no flavor, no spice.

A show set in fictional fantasy Poland should feel and look different than one sent in fantasy England than fantasy Japan than fantasy Africa. Don’t paint over good works with pale imitations. Don’t treat characters as a conglomeration of intrinsic characteristics with no soul.

That is what is wrong with woke media.

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

"Will The America First Coalition Fracture Over the Iran Strike?"

 I am one of the wanting retribution since 1979 for all the crap we had to deal with from the Mullah's in Iran, Reagan took no crap, but it seems that every president since except for President Trump tried the appeasement route and it got us nowhere.  I President Trump wants no troops on the ground he was adamant about that, but the looney left is talking about all those MAGAt neeed to step up and fight since trump got us into another war.  I told some wacky lady on insty *Bitch, I already did, and got the scars and the memories to prove it, and and would do so again, this was necessary, go back to your box wine and cats and let the adults handle the decisions in the room*.   Needless to say, I wasn't popular.  Like I cared, LOL



   I shamelessly clipped this from Townhall and Kurt Kurt Schlichter.


AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

The critical follow-on function for a devastating strike like the one Donald Trump just launched against the goat-molesting seventh-century semi-humans ruling Iran is battle damage assessment. BDA is a crucial function – you need to understand how much pain you inflicted and calculate whether you need to inflict some more. But you don’t just do it on the enemy; you have to do it on yourself, too. It’s vital that we, as America First conservatives, conduct our own BDA on what this strike did to our movement.

Advertisement

As it has become clear, America First is not a monolith. There are various factions within the America First coalition, including some ravenous hawks who have yearned for 46 years to see this righteous retribution delivered to those drooling barbarian fanatics – on this issue, I’m a hawk – as well as those who, at various levels of rationality, run from skeptical to actively opposed to busting the mullahs’ bunkers. In the run-up to the bomb run, we heard dire warnings that Trump launching this attack would shatter our coalition, crumbling the unity that brought disparate factions together into a united front to defeat the grotesquely evil establishment that had infected our great nation. The question is whether Donald Trump’s decision to send in the B-2 Spirits will break the spirit of the America First force he has built.

My take: That’s not going to happen.

We keep hearing from people who insist that they weren’t voting to bomb Iran when they voted for Donald Trump, but I was totally voting to bomb Iran when I voted for Donald Trump. I knew that Donald Trump wasn’t going to be a pathetic pushover like Barack Obama, the soft new fish of world politics who sold himself for cigarettes and security on the cell block. I was a high school freshman when these creeps first dared to put their stinking paws on Americans after invading our embassy. America never avenged that or the deaths at Desert One. In the decades that followed, Iran’s legacy of terrorism, torture, and murder has run the tally to well over 1,000 dead Americans. That atrocities from Beirut to Khobar Towers to the explosively formed projectiles in Iraq have gone unavenged until now – and it is only partially avenged as it stands – is a disgrace. Third World potentates should shiver in cold horror at the thought of our unmerciful vengeance should they ever presume to harass an American.

     This isn’t “Iraq 2: Electric Boogaloo.” When people complain that Donald Trump promised us no new wars – you can see that the memo for that went out to the Democrats, and when you agree with the Official Democrat Talking Points™, you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself – they are missing the point. This is not a new war. We’ve been at war with these fanatical creeps for half a century, and it’s long overdue that we finally struck back.

But, of course, the people who think like me are only a part of the America First coalition – the polling suggests we are a very big part. Still, a significant part of the American First coalition, including friends of mine who I greatly respect, disagree, and deserve a hearing when they feel strongly about something. They think differently about this issue. And you know what? They’re not crazy to do so.

As a soldier, you always want to understand what the other side thinks. Part of the reason we prevailed this weekend was that we followed that and other teachings of Sun Tzu instead of the teachings of Ibram X. Kendi. As a lawyer, I always had to understand the other guy’s arguments to win in court. Moreover, since literally everybody you talk to as a lawyer disagrees with you, you also learn not to take it personally. This isn’t personal; we can disagree, the decision gets made, then we move forward together – and we must.

The fact is, most of those on the right who were against the strike had quite reasonable arguments in support of their position. They were not crazy. They were not evil. Sure, there are the weirdos and dummies out there pretending to be part of our movement who spew out things like “I won’t die for Israel” and blame the Jews for their inability to attain and sustain turgidity – we have idiots in our party just like the Democrats have idiots in theirs although, in the Democrats’ case, the idiots are the party instead of the exception.

Advertisement

Let’s consider the case made by those who disagree with me about crushing these vermin:

1. The United States has a long track record of total failure in the Middle East, with promises of short and painless victories that turned into endless bloodbaths that slaughtered and maimed the best of the American people.

2. America has real problems at home, and we ought to focus our efforts here.

3. We can’t trust the intelligence.

4. This is Israel’s fight, not ours.

5. Lindsey Graham, Mike Pence, and Adam Kinzinger think it was a good idea.

6. This will shatter the American First coalition.

Again, none of these arguments are crazy. These are good points, offered in good faith, that require fair consideration. You can rationally conclude that we should not have attacked Iran without being a nut, a fool, or an antisemite. Many of my close friends have. But I think they are wrong to do so. 

Yes, America’s foreign policy elite has completely screwed up everything east of Suez in the last 25 years, but history is longer than 25 years. I was there in the Gulf War 35 years ago, and we had a short, sharp, total victory. We are not condemned to eternal reruns of the failures of Iran and Afghanistan, operations that started brilliantly and only went off the rails because the Foggy Bottom geniuses wanted to impose their faculty lounge version of democracy, including such wine woman obsessions as gender weirdness, upon an unwilling foreign populace. With solid leadership of the kind we now have in the Pentagon and a proper mission that has us acting as warriors rather than cultural missionaries, our troops can achieve victory.

Advertisement

The American people, especially our troops and their families, have suffered unbelievably because of our garbage elite’s screw-ups. Thinking about this column, I tallied up friends and acquaintances who were hurt or killed in the wars of the last 25 years. There’s the officer wounded by an American traitor and another officer wounded by an Afghan traitor. I have two friends whose lungs are permanently wrecked. I have another whose head was nearly taken off by a 122mm rocket. And then there was the son of a former client who was killed at Abbey Gate. 

Don’t ever minimize what happened to our troops or how it has properly influenced so many of our vets to be skeptical of, or even actively opposed to, any military action over there. America’s failed ruling class squandered their trust, and they are absolutely justified in applying their experience to the present. I don’t agree with them – I think this situation is readily distinguishable because Iran is (was) a very real threat and we required payback for past injuries, but their argument is well taken. We should listen respectfully and not insult or belittle them. They’ve got a point.

As far as having real problems at home, we’re always going to have problems at home. The problem at home I worry about most is having an Iranian nuclear device detonate over Los Angeles. I don’t have to believe the intelligence, which can be corrupted in both directions, to recognize the peril. The fact is, the Iranians did have a nuclear capability because they said so, and everybody agreed that they did. They also said they wanted first Israel, then the US, obliterated. I believe in taking people seriously when they tell you they’re going to kill you. It might not have happened this year or in five years, but in ten years, it would have. Apocalyptic death cults seek to cause apocalyptic death. 

Advertisement

And that’s why I disagree about it being Israel’s fight. It’s not just Israel’s fight. It’s Western civilization’s fight, and unfortunately, most of Western civilization has decided to take the femboy option of cowardice and decline. It’s not fair that the job of defending humanity has fallen to us almost alone among Western nations, but life’s not fair. Israel’s been fighting our battle alone for far too long.

Then comes perhaps the most compelling argument against Iranian intervention. That Lindsey Graham, Mike Pence, and Adam Kinzinger are in favor of it should make anyone reconsider. Statistically, we were always going to have some number of terrible people happen to side with us. But yes, when you find that these guys agree with you, it’s time to do a recheck. But like broken clocks, these guys are going to be right once in a while.

Now, the big question – will this ruin Trump? Will this break up our fragile new coalition? No. America First is not a pacifist movement. America First is a Jacksonian movement, where we leave you alone until you mess with us, and then we kill you. Some people will disagree with Donald Trump’s actions. Every time Donald Trump does something, some faction of the coalition will disagree with it. However, we need to stick together because we agree on most things. Those who did not support intervention in Iran are not going to find friends on the Democrat side – the Democrat side opposes it because they hate America. In contrast, those in our coalition who opposed intervening in Iran did so because they think that’s best for America. They are patriots. This is a key difference. 

Advertisement

Disputes about the America First doctrine are adjudicated by Donald Trump. Down the road, Donald Trump will inevitably leave the scene, but right now, he’s the guy we decided to trust to be the referee. He’s the guy we put our confidence in. He’s the guy that we picked as our leader. He hasn’t lied about who he is or tried to fool us. He wanted peace and worked for it, and when that didn’t work, he pulled the trigger to make peace happen despite the Iranians. Leaders lead; thank goodness America has one after four years of President Eggplant.

What we America Firsters are going to do now is move forward, supporting our troops and supporting our president. America First is going to survive this crisis – the ham-handed efforts by the Democrats to exploit it to break us up, notwithstanding – and the attack on Iran will make us stronger because normies will see Trump‘s leadership as decisive and strong. We need to have a debate about where we go from here, not a fight. Tomorrow, we’ll stand shoulder to shoulder once more to make America great again.

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

"When It Is Your Time"

 I was looking for something else and ran across this and thought it was worthy of a repost.  This cuts to something that is a core to what makes us as honorable men, we fight for our country, for our family, and our comrades, and if necessary we will cash that blank check because to refuse will be an insult to what makes us men.  The phrase "A brave Man dies but once but a coward does a thousand times" is truth in those words.  We always know when the time comes we face it with steel in our spine and go as honorable men should.  Because all men die, it is the truth of our existence, how we die is the decision we make.


  I decided to repost it because it is a really good post.  
I had "borrowed"this from a fellow blogger, "Stormbringer" A.K.A. Sean Linnae.  His blog is still on my blogroll although he hasn't posted since 2020, I still leave him on my blog roll, hoping that he will return.

 


  or in the 13th warrior when the Norsemen recited this:


 
"Lo there do I see my father. Lo there do I see my mother and my sisters and my brothers. Lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning. Lo, they do call to me, they bid me take my place among them, in the Halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever."






“So live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life, beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and its purpose in the service of your people. Prepare a noble death song for the day when you go over the great divide.

Always give a word or a sign of salute when meeting or passing a friend, even a stranger, when in a lonely place. Show respect to all people and grovel to none.

When you arise in the morning give thanks for the food and for the joy of living. If you see no reason for giving thanks, the fault lies only in yourself. Abuse no one and no thing, for abuse turns the wise ones to fools and robs the spirit of its vision.

When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”



~ Chief Tecumseh (Poem from 
Act of Valor)

Friday, June 20, 2025

If election interference true.....in 2020

 I know a lot of people would like to have President Trump win in 2020, but in a way losing in 2020 was a blessing in a disguise.  It had to show the American people what 4 years of democratic rule would be like.  It had shown how bad it could be, if President Trump had won in 2020 with the Democrats having the house and senate, he would have spent all 4 years fighting off impeachments and having a squishy administration, one would have succeeded....eventually and he would have been a political pariah in the history books.  But the 4 years in the wilderness gave him time to prepare if he was successful and he hit the ground running once he was sworn in.  the shock and awe have left the democrats stunned and they have been on the 20% of the 80% of the issues that the American People support, and they keep doubling down on the stupid.  Illegals, Men in women's sports, catering to 4% of the population with gender dysphoria issues and refusal to go after all the fraud shown by D.O.G.E. but I guess I can understand why, the graft and grift was a huge income stream for the NGO's and groups that supported the Donks agenda so I understand why they squealed.

      I shamelessly clipped this off "Bongino Report"...Yes I am shameless, LOL   I am still on vacation, so I will blog when I can.  I am using my tablet to do this post...




Eighty-one million votes. No one with more than two functioning brain cells actually believed Joe Biden legitimately received 81 million votes on November 3, 2020 to win the election.

Donald Trump received 11 million votes more in 2020 than he did when he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, yet he was still 7 million votes short of Biden’s unfathomable 81 million.

But this week the FBI sent Congress an intelligence report raising concerns that China may have tried to interfere in that election, and for the very first time it’s all beginning to make sense.


And if true, the Chinese Communist Party may have cut its own throat in the process

"The FBI has located documents which detail alarming allegations related to the 2020 U.S. election, including allegations of interference by the CCP," FBI Director Kash Patel announced Monday. "I have immediately declassified the material and turned the documents over to [Senate Judiciary Committee] Chairman [Chuck] Grassley for further review.”

The intelligence report alleges that the Chinese Communist Party mass-produced counterfeit U.S. driver’s licenses in a scheme to submit fraudulent mail-in ballots and throw the election in Biden’s favor.

Just as alarming, the report is from August 2020 — more than two months prior to the 2020 election, yet then-FBI Director Christopher Wray shut the investigation down, and testified that there were no known foreign interference plots before the 2020 election.

Wray was appointed as FBI director in 2017 by President Donald Trump.

But apart from Wray’s apparent lack of fidelity to the laws of the United Statesand lack of loyalty to the president who appointed him, China may have worked against its own interests in the long run, assuming the allegations are true.

The FBI report doesn't say whether China's efforts succeeded nor whether the election's outcome would have changed even if they did. Nevertheless, China gained an ally in Joe Biden for four years, and Trump was able to use that same four-year period to outline what his own second term would look like — this time armed with what he’d learned from his first term.

As a result, when Inauguration Day arrived, Trump hit the ground running. He fired off a spate of executive orders, appointed a young, energetic, and loyal Cabinet, and took action to restore America’s place in the world.

And a big part of restoring American influence was addressing trade deficits.

One of Trump’s initial acts was to set reciprocal tariffs with our trading partners — whatever tariffs they charged us, we charged them right back.

One-by-one other countries agreed to reduce their own tariffs, and last month China agreed to a temporary90-day reduction in tariffs while the two countries continue negotiations.

Some of the few products the United States requires from China are rare earth minerals. So meanwhile, Trump entered into an agreement to have Ukraine supply those same minerals to the United States as a second source.

As an additional backup, the United States is actively working to develop a domestic rare earth mineral mining and processing industry in a number of western states, with an eye to reducing reliance on anyone — especially China.

It’s unlikely that any of this would have happened if Trump wasn’t given a four-year hiatus to work all this out — there would be no tariff negotiations, no domestic mining.

There’s an old superstition that bad news always comes in threes, and that’s certainly true for China from a public relations standpoint. Just within the last six months we learned that:

  • Chinese scientists made two attempts to smuggle a potentially toxic plant fungus into the United States to a University of Michigan research laboratory;
  • China funneled millions of dollars in grants to U.S. universities and nonprofits in order to promote climate change programs that would have destroyed America’s global energy dominance; and,
  • We now learn that China allegedly went to extraordinary lengths to throw the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden.

Chances are we wouldn’t have learned any of this had Trump been reelected in 2020, and we certainly wouldn’t have discovered it during his presidency.

And it’s also unlikely that the United States would have either negotiated to normalize international trade agreements, or explored alternatives to China for rare earth minerals had Trump not been given a timeout — thanks to China.

China has been working furiously to undermine American interests and influence in the world. This time they went “a bridge too far” — and it may be why they’re paying the price

Thursday, June 19, 2025

Where I am at


 We are in PNS for a few days, spent all day yesterday traveling to get here and getting supplies, now Today is a bum day. This my view from my balcony we can see the beach on the opposite side of our rental.  Will blog later.

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Data Checking the A380 20 years after debut.

 





Trying to find time to post pity comments, but ran across this in an email from my work email.  I had posted a lot about the "A380", the plane is a technological marvel but American Carriers will not touch an A380 for a couple of reasons, 1. They are maintenance heavy and American carriers are a "For Profit" enity meaning that they have to earn money to return an investment to the shareholders and the plane is a money pit.  All the airlines that fly the A380 are flag carriers for their respective nations and they get a "stiped" from their home government to "fly the Flag, because there is a lot of prestige to having a Flag Carrier.  We in the United States never had a "National Carrier" although "Pan-Am" was the closest we ever had to a national carrier.  

Data: Checking In With The A380 Two Decades After Paris Debut

 
Airbus A380

The Airbus A380 on show at Paris Air Show for the first time in 2005.

Credit: Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images

Twenty years on from wowing crowds at Le Bourget for the first time during the flying display in 2005, the Airbus A380 has not reached the heights once hoped for the program.

While the production run has now ended and a viable secondary market for the airframe is yet to be found, the A380 has nevertheless recovered better than many expected following the COVID crisis.

The global in-service fleet of A380s has dropped by 53 aircraft since May 2019, a fall of 22.7%. Yet total flight hours in May according to Aviation Week’s Tracked Aircraft Utilization tool were still 78.4% of May 2019.

However, a big year is coming up for the fleet. The mode age of the remaining in-service A380s is 11 years old, meaning 26 of the type are due for their costly 12-year D checks next year. Of the remaining in-service fleet, 111 airframes—or 73%—are younger than 12 years, which means operators have decisions to make.

British Airways’ A380 fleet is around the heavy check age, and the airline previously committed to continue operating the type, good news for its MRO partner Lufthansa Technik Philippines, which is contracted into 2027. Aviation Week data shows the flag carrier’s A380 fleet is racking up more monthly flight hours this year than in 2019 and outperforming average utilization for the global fleet.

Monday, June 16, 2025

Monday Music "I won't back down" by Tom Petty.

 I was too busy to post anything this weekend, I barely had time to be home to sleep.  I will touch upon this prolly tomorrow if I can.  Yesterday was Fathers day and I spent time with my Dad(In a way) and with my son.  But I was gone all day.  But for today's Monday Music I decided to roll with the Ringtone I had set for his phone when he would call me.


           He got Called to Fiddler's Green back in 2021 I had "done a Post" back in 2024 talking more about Fathers Day.    

I remembered this song after watching "Barnyard", It was a big hit for Tom Petty in 1989 and we used to jam in this song when I was stationed in Germany. We liked the message that if you believe in something and are willing to stand your ground, not even the gates of hell will prevail against you.  It is a good fight song.

"I Won't Back Down" is the first single from Tom Petty's first solo album, Full Moon Fever released in 1989. The song was written by Petty and Jeff Lynne, his writing partner for the album. It reached number 12 on the Billboard Hot 100 and topped the Album Rock Tracks chart for five weeks, starting the album's road to multi-platinum status.

 Petty recalled the recording of this song to Mojo magazine: "At the session George Harrison sang and played the guitar. I had a terrible cold that day, and George went to the store and bought a ginger root, boiled it and had me stick my head in the pot to get the ginger steam to open up my sinuses, and then I ran in and did the take."

A message of defiance against unnamed forces of difficulty and possibly oppression, the lyric is set against a mid-tempo beat:
Well I know what's right, I got just one life
in a world that keeps on pushin' me around
but I'll stand my ground, and I won't back down
Due to its themes, the song was played often on American radio following the September 11 attacks. Petty and the Heartbreakers played a quiet but resolute version of the song at the America: A Tribute to Heroes telethon following the 2001 attacks.
In the 2007 documentary Runnin' Down a Dream, Petty said that he felt some initial hesitation about releasing the song, given its clear and unabashed message.
 The music video, directed by David Leland, was shot on March 22 and 23, 1989 on a sound stage at Pinewood Studios and released on April 24, 1989. Traveling Wilburys bandmates George Harrison and Jeff Lynne appear in the video. Mike Campbell and Harrison's former Beatles bandmate Ringo Starr are also featured in the video along with George's famous painted Stratocaster "Rocky" being played by Campbell. Starr is depicted in the video as playing the drums on the song, though in reality, drumming was performed by Phil Jones.

 Sam Elliot sang this song in the movie "Barnyard."

Friday, June 13, 2025

Ukraines Drone strike highlights the surprise of that delivery system.

 I snagged this from "Defense Weekly", it talked more about the Ukrainian Strike against the Russian Bomber Fleet, to me this is a strategic attack, it takes part of their nuclear delivery assets out of play.  I don't know if this was a game changer for the Ukrainians, but I do know that Putin did lose face by this incident.


satellite view of damaged Russian bombers

Poststrike satellite imagery revealed the charred remains of two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 bombers hit by Ukrainian drones at Olenya air base near the Barents Sea.

Credit: Maxar Technologies

Three Ukrainian attack drones struck a Sukhoi Su-57 fighter on June 8, 2024, at a base 365 mi. deep inside Russia. Satellite imagery showed the strike damaged the stealth fighter, a small victory for Kyiv in a long, difficult war.

That isolated action a year ago proved to be only a warning shot—or perhaps a sneak preview. On June 1, 2025, Ukraine struck again on a larger and deeper scale. In a creative aerial ambush devised 18 months and nine days earlier by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), semitrucks hauling portable cabins smuggled scores of armed drones deep into the Russian interior, parking in locations stretching from along the Finnish border on the Barents Sea to near the shores of Lake Baikal in Siberia.

  • At least 11 Russian aircraft were destroyed in the June 1 attacks
  • The strikes introduce new offensive options and reveal defensive vulnerabilities

Hiding in plain sight within range of several bomber bases, these “Trojan trucks” opened their cabin roofs and released more than 100 remotely piloted, first-person-view (FPV) drones. Satellite imagery confirms Ukrainian estimates that the drones destroyed at least 11 Russian aircraft, including nine bombers. Dozens more may have been damaged.

For Ukraine, the impact of Operation Spider’s Web—the SBU’s code name for the covert drone attacks—may play out for months. It is not clear how many of the aircraft destroyed were involved in strikes in Ukraine or even flyable, but the widespread nature of the attacks may still have some effect. In addition to the embarrassment from the failure to stop such a brazen operation, “Russia will likely struggle to replace the aircraft that Ukrainian forces damaged and destroyed,” the Institute for the Study of War states in a June 1 assessment.

The attack also highlights a global trend in aerial warfare with implications for offensive planning and defensive preparations.

Springing attacks on enemy aircraft while they are parked on seemingly friendly soil is nothing new. At the outset of the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israeli Air Force launched a surprise raid into Egypt, destroying 452 aircraft on the ground. Nor is it new to blend conventional airpower with special operations units like the SBU. In 1942 the British Special Air Service infiltrated a Luftwaffe base in Egypt, then used machine guns loaded with tracer rounds to destroy or damage 37 parked aircraft.

Attacks on enemy airfields also feature in planning for future wars. In 2017, U.S. Air Force then-Brig. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich published an online essay after spending a year drafting the strategy for acquiring what became the Boeing F-47. In a future conflict, Grynkewich wrote, Northrop Grumman B-21s would strike enemy airfields while the next air superiority fighter swept the skies of any aircraft that had managed to take off.

Meanwhile, interest in ground-launched, short-range FPV drones is spreading. A day after the Operation Spider’s Web attacks, the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) launched Project GI, a competition offering $20 million in prizes to companies that can rapidly deliver such weapon systems with ranges beyond 20 km (12.4 mi.). Project GI aims to close a gap in the U.S. drone inventory.

“Today, warfighters lack the unmanned systems needed to train for combat and prevail if called upon to use them,” DIU Director Doug Beck said June 2. “Doing this [project] at speed will in turn help catalyze the necessary scaling and readiness through major acquisition and training efforts.”

U.S. Army Patriot battery
A U.S. Army Patriot battery guards Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, but Air Force leaders urgently want a more robust, layered system to protect air bases from air and missile attacks. Credit: Staff Sgt. Kenneth Boyton/U.S. Air Force

Although Ukraine lacks air superiority and a long-range bomber fleet, the country’s repeated attacks on air bases inside Russia shows the advance of technology in the air littoral, a layer of airspace usually defined as below 10,000 ft. For Operation Spider’s Web, the SBU reportedly deployed Ukrainian manufacturer First Contact’s Osa drones. Each 5-kg (11-lb.) quadcopter can carry up to 3.3 kg of explosives to targets up to 8 km away, according to the manufacturer’s website.

Meager attempts to protect the Russian bombers by covering the upper surfaces with old tires—possibly to confuse vision-based, autonomous targeting systems—failed to save the aircraft.

In addition to creating new offensive opportunities, the successful Ukrainian operation exposes defensive vulnerabilities that are as common in Europe and the U.S. as they are in Russia. Over the past two years, reports of unauthorized drone sightings have plagued several U.S. air bases, including a Lockheed Martin F-22 operating base in Virginia and a space launch complex in California. Last year, the Air Force paused the award of the Next-Generation Air Dominance contract for several months to review the original requirements, including whether the vulnerability of air bases could negate the advantages of a powerful new fighter.

“The F-47 is an amazing aircraft, but it’s going to die on the ground like everything else if we don’t protect it,” Gen. David Allvin, the Air Force chief of staff, said at an event hosted by the Center for a New American Security in Washington on June 3.

Concerns about air base vulnerability are driving negotiations with the Army over whether the Air Force should be responsible for defending its own air bases. The Navy provides a layered air defense system to protect its fleet, but a long-standing policy requires the Air Force to rely on the Army for such protection.

“The bottom line is that the joint force needs more robust ground-based air defense, whether it’s from an airfield or someplace that the Marines are operating or the Army is operating,” Allvin said. “We do continue to need robust point defense for agile combat employment to work.”

In Europe, the threat of similar attacks is acute. Most air bases are in the open countryside and near public roads. Their movements are easily monitored, and the aircraft are parked in the open air, often undispersed. Many of these air bases lack anti-drone equipment or the spare personnel to operate it if they did.

Some countries, like France and Germany, have multiple bases with transport aircraft and airlifters, but the UK, for example, has piled all of its air transport assets into one location, Brize Norton, to save costs.

NATO’s Air Command is urging member countries to develop agile combat employment concepts to generate sustained combat airpower through dispersal. However, this does not necessarily work for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, which are often tethered to main or forward operating bases so their intelligence products can be processed and distributed.

While tankers and transports can operate from commercial airports, they tend to stick out.

China is increasingly building air bases with shelter infrastructure for large aircraft, including the KJ-500 airborne early warning aircraft based on the Shaanxi Y-8 turboprop airlifter. While not hardened, these 60-m-wide (197-ft.) structures with closing doors at both ends make the aircraft difficult to target on the ground, as overhead imagery cannot identify what aircraft is in a shelter. They would also prevent attack by small drones like those Ukraine used in Russia. These structures can be found at a People’s Liberation Army Air Force base near Dalian, at Leizhuang near Guiyang, and at Jiujiang’s Lushan air base.

Thursday, June 12, 2025

250 Years of Infantry Long Rifles.

 I enjoyed "clipping" this article from "American Rifleman especially since I own 3 examples of the rifles shown, well until that durn kayak accident*sniff*Sniff*.

   There they are in the case, before that durn Kayak....*sniff*  I owned the 03 since the late 1980's brought her from Germany.   Bought the Garand much later.



On the firing Line.  I use 150 grain bullets as to not overstress the "OPROD" on the Garand.  I need to find time to go to the CMP and buy some "Garand" ammo.



  Here is my original AR-15, built her in 1991, before the AWB.  before all the drama.  Durn Kayaks and canoe's should be registered weapons of mass destructions lemme tell you. 





Bunker Hill To Baghdad collage text on image noting FROM BUNKER HILL TO BAGHDAD 250 YEARS OF U.S. INFANTRY LONGARMS
Painting by Don Troiani, Photo by Sean A. Foley/U.S. Army

Following the outbreak of conflict in Massachusetts in April 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in May 1775 to function as a de facto government for the fledgling and tenuous colonial union. When the delegates met, a British army was bottled up in Boston by armed militiamen who had come from surrounding counties and colonies. A countryside uprising fomented by British attempts at arms confiscation had, by late spring, developed into an organized military body, and the Congress recognized it as such on June 14, 1775, when it declared that the 22,000 men arrayed outside Boston were troops of the Continental Army. By unanimous vote, the assemblage appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief.

Just three days later, the Army would face its baptism by fire at the Battle of Bunker Hill, when the ragtag group of upstart colonials poured deadly volleys into the British troops advancing up the slopes of Breed’s Hill. Though the Army was eventually forced to retreat from its entrenchments, the British paid dearly for the ground gained, suffering more than 1,000 casualties across three assaults. The men who fought at Breed’s Hill initiated a martial tradition within the American spirit that continues into the present day. They were civilian-soldiers—armed with hunting fowlers, captured military arms and cobbled-together gunsmith creations—facing off against the supreme military power of the age. Soon after the Continental Army’s fight on the heights outside Boston, some semblance of standardization began to creep into its makeup, starting with its infantry arms.

Of course, a survey such as the one that follows cannot possibly be comprehensive, as countless volumes could be (and have been) filled with the stories and details of U.S. martial firearms, ammunition and equipment, along with the men who employed them, across the past 250 years. But, at this momentous anniversary, it’s worth appreciating, at least in a succinct way, how far U.S. small arms development has come, as well as how, in some ways, so little has changed.


Model 1763/66 Charleville flintlock smoothbore longarm with wood stock and right-side lockwork
Model 1763/66 Charleville
Shortly after the establishment of the Continental Army, the Second Continental Congress acknowledged the severe shortage of suitable military arms, ammunition and supplies by authorizing secret communications with France for the purpose of obtaining war materiel. These negotiations resulted in the arrival of several shiploads of arms by April 1777, bringing quantities of older French Model 1763/66 “Charleville” flintlock muskets to American shores. By war’s end, the Charleville would be widely issued within the Continental Army and would serve as one of the principal military longarms into the early American era. According to arms historian George Moller, French arms shipments during the Revolution totaled well over 100,000 guns, and the true number may be significantly higher. The smoothbore French musket stood out from common civilian-pattern arms used in and around the siege of Boston by its cut-back forestock that exposed several inches of the barrel behind the muzzle, providing space for a rectangular metal lug that enabled it to mount a 17" triangular bayonet. Its standardized, .69-cal. bore eased the logistics of supplying ammunition to the new Army. By order of the Continental Congress, Charleville muskets in U.S. service were marked with a “United States” surcharge mark commonly found on the lock, barrel and stock of surviving arms. By 1780, this marking would be changed to a simple “US” stamp.

Overall Length: 
60"
Barrel Length: 44"
Weight: 8 lbs., 6 ozs., to 10 lbs., 4 ozs. (depending on model)
Caliber: .69
Infantry Load: 24 to 40 paper cartridges (depending on cartridge box pattern)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1795 Springfield flintlock smoothbore musket right-side view wood stock silver metal work shown with bayonet
Model 1795 Springfield
With Gen. Washington’s approval, the site that would eventually become Springfield Armory was first set up in 1777 at the confluence of the Connecticut and Westfield rivers as the nation’s first military arsenal. But in its early years, the site was employed for storage and cartridge fabrication rather than armsmaking. Congress officially established Springfield Armory in 1794 as a location in which to build military small arms, a process that began with the Model 1795, which was patterned after the French flintlock muskets used to win American independence. So closely did these arms resemble the French guns that, at the time of manufacture, they were referenced as “U.S. Muskets, Charleville Pattern.” Due to the hand-fitting required in building 1795s, as well as the logistical challenges of establishing a new arms factory, only a few thousand of these muskets were made before the turn of the 19th century. Eventually, the establishment of a new federal armory at Harper’s Ferry, Va.—now in West Virginia—along with the use of several independent contractors and the increasing self-sufficiency of the Springfield Armory, increased quantities of available arms. Springfield Armory alone manufactured more than 100,000 before production ceased in 1815. While supplemented by various civilian contract muskets, the 1795 served as the principal infantry arm for the U.S. military during the War of 1812.

Overall Length: 60"
Barrel Length: 44"
Weight: 9 lbs., 8 ozs.
Caliber:
 .69
Infantry Load: 
38 paper cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1816 Springfield flintlock smoothbore longarm right-side view with wood stock brass parts right-side lock
Model 1816 Springfield
Early U.S. military muskets were largely built by hand, making manufacturing and repair slow and cumbersome. During his ambassadorship to France, Thomas Jefferson became familiar with the concept of interchangeable parts, as pioneered by Jean-Baptiste Vaquette de Gribeauval and Honoré Blanc, then being applied to the production of Model 1777 Charleville muskets used by French troops. Jefferson recommended that such manufacturing methods be implemented in American industry and supported early efforts by armsmakers, notably Eli Whitney, toward those ends. By 1812, several men, notably Commissary Gen. Callender Irvine and Ordnance Chief Decius Wadsworth, worked to incorporate interchangeable parts into American military arms. These efforts met varying degrees of success from the early 1800s until the 1840s.

Of the several infantry muskets produced during that period, the Model 1816 Springfield emerged as the most notable and widely produced variant, seeing use in various guises for nearly half a century. Largely based on the Model 1777 Charleville, save for a slightly shorter barrel and modified stock, the Model 1816 saw use in the Texas Revolution, the Mexican-American War and the early years of the Civil War. More than 700,000 were produced until the mid-1840s by various makers, more than any other U.S. martial flintlock, and the design saw its zenith in the short-lived Model 1840 flintlock musket, which was produced with interchangeable parts.

Overall Length: 58"
Barrel Length: 42"
Weight: 9 lbs., 11 ozs.
Caliber: .69
Infantry Load: 38 paper cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1842 Springfield percussion sidelock rifle Mississippi rifle wood stock three band configuration
Model 1842 Springfield
Small-arms evolution and the advent of the American System of Manufacture in the first half of the 19th century gave rise to several innovations, notably the development of true parts interchangeability and the use of a percussion ignition system in place of a flintlock. Both advancements culminated in the Model 1842 Springfield, the first percussion-primed musket widely adopted by the U.S. Army, as well as the first U.S. infantry musket to be built entirely from machine-made interchangeable parts at both national armories.

Externally, and aside from its use of a percussion lock and bolster, the 1842 borrowed many features from the pre-existing Models 1816 and 1840 muskets and remained a smoothbore arm offering limited range and accuracy compared to contemporary service rifles. The advent of the rifle musket saw a number of 1842s later rifled for longer-range use. Production commenced in 1844, and while it saw little employment during the ensuing Mexican-American War, the Model 1842, in both rifled and smoothbore guises, served in large numbers during the Civil War. More than 270,000 were produced by the federal armories at Springfield and Harper’s Ferry.

Overall Length: 58"
Barrel Length: 42"
Weight: 9 lbs., 13 ozs.
Caliber: .69
Infantry Load: 40 paper cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1855/1861 Springfield percussion rifles two comparison view wood stock longarms
Model 1855/1861 Springfield
French ordnance officials continued to spearhead innovations in firearm technology in the mid-19th century, and by the 1840s, Claude-Etienne Minié, building on the earlier work of Henri-Gustav Delvigne, had developed a hollow-base, cylindrical bullet with an iron plug that could be loaded easily into the bore of a muzzleloading rifle. When fired, the bullet would expand into shallow rifling grooves that provided spin and stability to the projectile in flight. Experiments at Harper’s Ferry Armory resulted in a variant of Minié’s projectile designed by Master Armorer James Burton. A version of this hollow-base bullet designed by Lt. James G. Benton would subsequently become the standard projectile used in the Model 1855 Springfield rifle musket, the first general-issue U.S. longarm to be rifled. Its unique Maynard priming system used a roll of waxed paper, dotted with pockets of percussion priming compound, that uncoiled and advanced with the cocking of the hammer, obviating the need for percussion caps.

By the eve of the Civil War, nearly 60,000 Model 1855s had been produced, but the wartime demand for huge quantities of shoulder arms necessitated a simplified variant that could be produced quickly and easily. The complicated and finicky Maynard primer system of the 1855 was eliminated in the Model 1861. By war’s end, more than 1.1 million Springfield-pattern muskets had been produced by Springfield Armory and many civilian makers contracted by the U.S. government to fulfill the huge demand for guns.

Overall Length: 56"
Barrel Length: 
40"
Weight: 9 lbs., 3 ozs.
Caliber: .58
Infantry Load: 40 paper cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1873 Springfield sidelock percussion rifle shown with leather sling wood stock gun right-side view
Model 1873 Springfield
Wartime experiences in the 1860s underscored the utility of the self-contained metallic cartridge, and leading military powers quickly sought suitable shoulder arms that could make use of such technology. With prodigious quantities of muzzleloading rifle muskets on hand at the end of the Civil War, U.S. ordnance officials found an expedient solution from Erskine S. Allin, master armorer at Springfield Armory. Allin’s conversion process transformed now-obsolete muzzleloading rifle muskets into single-shot breechloaders through a hinged “trapdoor” that swung up and forward, simultaneously opening the breech end of the gun while also extracting and ejecting a spent cartridge. Early Allin conversion mechanisms were standardized in newly built U.S.-issue arms with the short-lived .50-cal. models of the late 1860s, but the adoption of the .45-70 Gov’t cartridge in 1873 resulted in a new rifle and carbine. Variants of the “Trapdoor Springfield” served the U.S. Army from the Indian Wars into the twilight years of the 19th century, and many saw active use with U.S. troops during the Spanish-American War.

Overall Length: 52"
Barrel Length: 32"
Weight: 8 lbs., 13 ozs.
Chambering: .45-70 Gov’t
Infantry Load: 70 cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1892 Krag-Jorgensen bolt-action rifle right-side view wood stock gun shown with leather sling
Model 1892 Krag-Jorgensen
Once again, French ordnance innovation spurred a new small-arms race at the end of the 19th century. Paul Vieille’s discovery of Poudre B, the first practical smokeless propellant, transformed rifle design by enabling the use of smaller-bore, higher-velocity ammunition. U.S. ordnance officials trialed several competing rifles in the early 1890s, and the design from Norwegians Ole Krag and Erik Jorgensen emerged as the winner and served as the U.S. Army’s first general-issue bolt-action service rifle in several model variations from 1894 to 1903.

Notable for its unique box magazine protruding from the right side of the action, the Krag-Jorgensen was the first repeating rifle to be generally issued to the U.S. Army. A magazine cut-off enabled it to be loaded and fired singly, a common feature in early bolt-action military rifles. The anemic performance of the .30-40 Krag cartridge for which it was chambered, along with inherent weaknesses in the receiver design, caused the Krag to be among the most short-lived U.S. military arms. Nearly 475,000 Krag rifles and carbines were produced under license by Springfield Armory from 1894 to 1904.

Overall Length: 49"
Barrel Length: 30"
Weight: 8 lbs., 7 ozs.
Chambering: .30-40 Krag
Infantry Load: 100 cartridges
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


Model 1903 Springfield right-side view of bolt-action rifle wood stock
Model 1903 Springfield
During the Spanish-American War, U.S. Army troops faced Spanish soldiers armed with the Model 1893 Mauser, and captured examples were examined and tested by U.S. ordnance officials. After failed attempts to enhance the capabilities of then-issued Krag rifles, development began on what eventually became the Model 1903 Springfield. In terms of receiver design, much was borrowed from extant Mauser designs, notably the Models 1893 and 1898, along with some features from the pre-existing Krag—such as the magazine cut-off.

More than 3 million Model 1903 Springfields were produced, in all variants, from 1903 until 1944. While heavily supplemented by the Model 1917 during World War I, the Model 1903 remained the official U.S. service rifle until 1936 and saw heavy use during the early years of World War II. In its Model 1903A4 sniper configuration, the bolt-action Springfield saw service through the Korean War. Its .30-’06 Sprg. chambering would be an Army standard for more than 50 years and remained an outsized influence on ammunition design beyond the mid-20th century.

Overall Length: 43.5"
Barrel Length: 24"
Weight: 8 lbs., 11 ozs.
Chambering: .30-’06 Sprg.
Infantry Load: 100 cartridges (20 five-round stripper clips)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


M1 Garand right-side view wood-stocked rifle semi-automatic
M1 Garand
Several semi-automatic rifles emerged in the early 20th century but saw limited military use. In the waning years of World War I, American inventor John Pedersen designed and built a device that allowed existing Model 1903 Springfield rifles to function as semi-automatic carbines, but the November Armistice of 1918 ended the conflict before the so-called Pedersen Device could be deployed. Further American development of semi-automatic designs continued into the 1920s before Springfield Armory engineer John C. Garand’s experimental T1E2 emerged as a clear winner for America’s first semi-automatic service rifle.

Using a unique, C-shaped en bloc clip holding eight staggered rounds of .30-’06 Sprg., the M1 was loaded through the top of the action and made ready to fire by allowing the reciprocating operating rod handle to move forward under spring pressure, thereby closing the rotating bolt. Propellant gas siphoned from a fired round entered a hole at the bottom of the barrel near the muzzle, which filled the gas cylinder below the barrel, propelling the operating rod and bolt rearward to extract a fired case and pick up the next round at the top of the en bloc clip. Once empty, the clip would spring from the locked-back action, prompting soldiers to insert a fresh clip.

Nearly 5.5 million M1 Garand rifles were produced from 1934 to 1957, and it served as the primary U.S. military longarm through World War II and the Korean War.

Overall Length: 43.5"
Barrel Length: 24"
Weight: 9 lbs., 8 ozs.
Chambering: .30-’06 Sprg.
Infantry Load: 80 cartridges (10 eight-round en bloc clips)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


M14 wood-stocked rifle right-side view shown with web sling and detachable box magazine wood stock flash hider
M14
Throughout World War II, Springfield Armory trialed several experimental versions of the M1, including the T20, a Garand-designed prototype that allowed for full-automatic fire and used detachable box magazines in place of the en bloc clip. A new short-stroke gas system developed by Earl Harvey was incorporated into the design, and, by the early 1950s, the experimental T44 was selected over the Belgian FAL and ArmaLite AR-10 to become America’s next service rifle: the M14. Simultaneously, NATO member countries standardized on a single service cartridge to ease potential logistical issues in another European war, with most nations settling on the 7.62 NATO, a shortened derivative of the .30-’06 Sprg. cartridge with a similar ballistic profile.

Consequently, the 7.62 NATO-chambered M14 served as the primary American service rifle from the late 1950s until the early 1960s and continued to be used in specialist roles until the early 21st century. Conceptually, the M14 was envisioned by U.S. ordnance officials to be a “universal” option that could replace several different arms in the U.S. military arsenal. However, by 1963, production delays and concerns over the M14’s controllability in full-automatic fire and effectiveness as a general replacement arm caused then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to halt production. More than 1.3 million M14s were made between 1959 and 1964.

Overall Length: 44.3"
Barrel Length: 22"
Weight: 9 lbs., 3 ozs.
Chambering: 7.62 NATO
Infantry Load: 100 cartridges (five 20-round magazines)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


M16A1 rifle right-side view shown with web sling
M16A1
Mounting concerns over the M14 in the early 1960s spurred several defense officials to explore alternative platforms. A .223-cal. variant of the earlier ArmaLite AR-10 had been developed by Eugene Stoner and gained popularity following several successful tests. By 1963, experimental XM16E1 rifles were being produced for the U.S. Army. Standardized as the M16A1 in 1967, the new service arm officially replaced the M14 in U.S. service by 1969. Its 5.56x45 mm cartridge (standardized as 5.56 NATO in 1980), weighed about half as much as the 7.62 NATO cartridge, enabling troops to carry twice as much ammunition in a standard combat load. Recoil was more manageable, making the M16A1 more controllable in full-automatic fire. The use of aluminum forgings for the receiver set, along with polymer in the handguard, buttstock and grip, significantly lightened the rifle as compared to earlier M14s and M1 Garands. The M16A1 saw substantial use in Vietnam, and subsequent variants continued to be employed by U.S. forces into the 21st century. By the early 2000s, it had been estimated that more than 8 million M16s in all variants had been manufactured, making it the most widely produced U.S. military rifle of all time.

Overall Length: 38.8"
Barrel Length: 20"
Weight: 6 lbs., 6 ozs.
Chambering: 5.56 NATO
Infantry Load: 200 cartridges (10 20-round magazines)
Photo courtesy of Rock Island Auction


M4A1 right-side view rifle black gun simliar to ar-15
M4A1
Despite the lightweight and easily controllable nature of the M16A1, some U.S. troops found the platform to be unwieldy in select scenarios, due to its fixed buttstock and 20" barrel. Early experimental carbine variants, notably the CAR-15s, saw use by special forces units in Vietnam. By 1967, an experimental XM177E2 model was in service with MACV-SOG and was employed until the early 1980s. In 1982, development began on a new carbine variant of the M16, and by 1987, the XM4 had been tested by both the Army and Marine Corps. In 1993, after the First Gulf War, Colt began producing M4 carbines for the Army. By 2005, most soldiers carried M4s, and the design saw heavy use during conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2010, M4 carbines were being updated to the M4A1 standard, adding a heavier-profile barrel that would dissipate heat during rapid fire, a full-automatic trigger group to replace the three-round-burst fire mechanism in the original M4 and a bilateral selector switch. The M4A1 is currently the principal service rifle for both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, with more than 500,000 produced as of the early 2000s.

Overall Length: 33.8"
Barrel Length: 14.5"
Weight: 7 lbs., 12 ozs.
Chambering: 5.56 NATO
Infantry Load: 210 cartridges (seven 30-round magazines)
Photo courtesy of FN America


Recent Decades & The Future
Despite the dominance of the M16/M4 platform in U.S. service, several testing programs in recent decades explored alternatives designed to increase the hit probability and lethality of U.S. military small arms. The Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) program, begun in 1986, explored several experimental models, but by 1990, none had met the Army’s criteria for a new firearm, and the project was shelved. Soon after, the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) program of the late 1990s picked up where the ACR program had left off, and it eventually explored designs intended to replace several existing U.S. small arms, notably the M16/M4 platform. A spin-off of the OICW program resulted in the Heckler & Koch XM8 rifle, but despite extensive testing, the project was canceled in October 2005. In August 2010, the Army invited manufacturers to submit models to the Individual Carbine open competition as potential replacements for the M4/M4A1 carbine. Testing concluded in June 2013, with the Army stating that, of the eight entrants, “ ... none of the competitors met the minimum requirements.” In 2017, the U.S. Army began its Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program, designed to explore potential upgrades to the M4A1 platform, with particular emphasis placed on the 5.56 NATO-chambered carbine’s ability to penetrate bulletproof vests fielded by near-peer adversaries. In April 2022, the U.S. Army awarded a 10-year contract to SIG Sauer to replace its existing M4A1 carbines with the company’s 6.8x51 mm NGSW-R design, officially designated as the XM7.