07-21-2013, 06:48 AM
I think it's more subtle than just lack of money - cancelling one new DDG-51 destroyer or a dozen F-35s would probably be enough to pay for the replacement of all the US small arms.
The problem is the official mindset. Senior officers are extremely reluctant to admit that there's anything wrong with 5.56mm, partly because they don't want to shake the confidence of those who use it, partly because it would generate bad PR and lead to them being accused of sending troops into harm's way knowing that they had deficient weapons.
So they keep trying to tweak the 5.56mm to make it better - something that they've now spent so much money on that if they were to turn around and admit that 5.56mm was fundamentally inadequate they would also be charged with wasting all of that development money in trying to come up with better loadings.
There is also the CYA aspect, in terms of the effect on careers. Nobody's career gets hurt by supporting the Army's official position (in this case, that 5.56mm is fine), but start rocking the boat by suggesting otherwise and you'll quickly become very unpopular.
Add all of the above together and what you get is massive inertia and reluctance to consider change, which makes getting anything different adopted - whatever its merits - a real struggle. Technical arguments can't prevail - it will take very senior officers and/or senior politicians to be convinced and tell the military to make the change.
The problem is the official mindset. Senior officers are extremely reluctant to admit that there's anything wrong with 5.56mm, partly because they don't want to shake the confidence of those who use it, partly because it would generate bad PR and lead to them being accused of sending troops into harm's way knowing that they had deficient weapons.
So they keep trying to tweak the 5.56mm to make it better - something that they've now spent so much money on that if they were to turn around and admit that 5.56mm was fundamentally inadequate they would also be charged with wasting all of that development money in trying to come up with better loadings.
There is also the CYA aspect, in terms of the effect on careers. Nobody's career gets hurt by supporting the Army's official position (in this case, that 5.56mm is fine), but start rocking the boat by suggesting otherwise and you'll quickly become very unpopular.
Add all of the above together and what you get is massive inertia and reluctance to consider change, which makes getting anything different adopted - whatever its merits - a real struggle. Technical arguments can't prevail - it will take very senior officers and/or senior politicians to be convinced and tell the military to make the change.