Air Force dropping the M9 for .45ACP

[TRIGRHAPPY]

The topic pretty much explains it. The U.S. Air Force is doing the comparisons between .40 S&W and .45 ACP pistols with preference going to the .45 ACP. Usually they wait for the Army, but they've already asked the Army to work on a replacement and since the Army can't afford it with the war in Iraq and budget constraints.....the Air Force is going around the Army and is getting it itself. The only time i recall this happening in the past is with the M16.....and we all know how that turned out.

They said the .45's they are looking at hold 7 to 12 rounds in the mag, which leads me to believe they aren't looking at the XD. The main reason for the change: inadequate stopping power from the M9.

Sweetness, FINALLY getting back to a real sidearm! I had my own armory for 2 years in the AF, i don't particularly favor M9's. I would much rather have an XD than anything else. It's lighter, more reliable, and uses the tried and true combat proven .45 ACP.

Hurah Air Force!

[DNM]

Have you heard of any serious contenders? You mention 7 to 12 round mags but I'm sure there are a few in mind, right?

[jeepinbanditrider]

If we were allowed to use JHP ammo in theather I wouldn't have a problem using a 9mm. Not the M9 but another maybe.

However since we are forced to use FMJ ammo I'm glad to see a service moving back towards the .45acp cartridge.

However don't expect this anytime soon congress put a halt to the program for now untill all the services could get in on it and develop a joint service pistol.

Congress Halts U.S. Air Force Plan for New Handgun

By RICK MAZE


Congressional negotiators have put a hold on the U.S. Air Force’s plans to replace the M9 9mm handgun so the Defense Department can consider the possibility of a joint plan for upgrading or replacing pistols.

The M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command, but the Air Force asked for $89.8 million in the 2007 wartime supplemental appropriations bill to start purchasing a replacement.

The request was not included in the compromise version of the bill approved April 23 by congressional negotiators. Instead, lawmakers would provide $5 million for a study of the joint sidearm requirements, including any service-unique requirements, according to a report accompanying the bill.

Because the supplemental bill faces a veto threat over issues unrelated to the handgun purchases, the only certain result of the agreement is that the Air Force will not get money anytime soon for a replacement weapon. Money for the handgun review would not be available unless this bill, or another bill containing similar language, is approved by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The study requested by lawmakers, to be completed by Aug. 31, would look at the M9’s capabilities, lethality and ammunition options, as well as how it stacks up against other handguns. The Aug. 31 date was picked because that would allow the results of the study to be considered when Congress puts together the final details of the 2008 defense appropriations bill, which traditionally is not approved until fall.

To conduct the study, lawmakers approved the purchase of up to 50 handguns and ammunition for the guns.

For years, talk has circulated about having a so-called Joint Combat Pistol, most likely a .45 caliber because that is what the U.S. Special Operations Command has been studying. In the early 1980s, the Air Force conducted several handgun tests to find something other than the M9, but no final decisions were made, partly because the Army and Special Operations Command had different requirements and wanted to conduct their own tests. The Army later did conduct its own tests, and did not recommend a replacement.


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2712165&C=america

These are some quotes from a guy that frequents another board I'm part of:

Once again let me see if I can add some perspective to this based on what I do (AF Acquisition Program Manager for those that haven't seen my other posts on this and similar issues).

From the perspective of the Acquisition (ACQ) Cycle this doesn't count as a delay because the program wasn't an official program. It was a request for statements of capability. Putting it on hold so the other services can get involved is entirely in-line with current ACQ policy. This part of the DoD is becoming more joint all the time and it is the only way to operate in a world of constrained budgets and ballooning requirements*.

30% of a programs cost** is in acquiring of the system. The other 70% is in the life-cycle support of that system. It only makes sense with that being the case to spread the costs between as many players as possible to make it cheaper for all. There is also the logistical consideration. If everyone has the same pistol with the same mags, spare parts, and ammunition it means no one is left high and dry at a supply depot owned by a different service.

The biggest problem with a joint program like this is meshing the requirements from dramatically different organizations. The Army and the Marines are looking for weapons to go out in the dust and the mud and function perfectly in heavy combat against other militaries and insurgents. The AF is looking at this (primarily) for the base cops and the security forces guys out at the silos who may be dealing with "local" security issues stateside. JSOCOM is looking for a pistol to do a wide variety of different roles. These different roles will make it difficult to mesh the requirements but if it can be done you will end up with a good over all service pistol.

From someone in the acquistion world I am happy to see they want a joint program because it going to A. be cheaper in the long run B. gives the program a better chance of survival and C. provided everyone can play well together create a better pistol over all.

* I am not trying to be political with this statement. It is an accepted "truth" that the Acquisition community operates on with all of our programs and so I believe a fair statement in the context of this post.

** Space sytems reverse this rule. For space systems 70% of cost is in the creation of the system and 30% in life-cycle support. Actually space systems are so unique that they have their own specific acquisition cycle. Contact me privately if you would like to know more.

Yes, this program has a shot but only if the team is headed by the AF or the Navy. Between all the services the AF and the Navy are by far and away superior to the Marines or the Army when it comes to procurement programs. If you look at recent history while the Army had the Comanche and Paladin (or was it the Crusader?) cancelled the Navy keeps their ship building programs alive (and FA-18 Super Hornet was perhaps the best acquisition program ever!) and the AF has kept F/A-22, CSAR-X, EELV, Tanker-X etc etc etc alive.

I can't speak for how the Navy (or the Marines) does this but I can speak to how the AF does and the Army doesn't. The AF starts officers in acquistions as 2Lts while the Army waits until they are senior captains or junior majors pulled from a combat arms or combat support role and put in an appropriate program office. This puts the Army at a terrible disadvantage when competing with the other services for funds. Army acquistion personnel are very competent in their chosen field (IE Infantry) but when they step into into accquisitions they are competing with officers with 8 to 10 years in the career field.

We (the AF and Navy) know the in's and out's of the process better, we know how to write requirements documents, funding requests and all the other documentation that keeps a program alive so much better than our cousins in the Army because of when we start developing our acquisitions officer. It greatly confuses me that the Army is able to understand you don't give a finance officer a rifle and let them lead a company into combat but they think you can give the infantry officer a pen and have then lead a multi-billion dollar acquisition program. (In the interest of full disclosure the AF for some reason thinks you can take a pilot out of a plane put them behind a desk and have them lead a program office. Program offices run multiple programs.) It is why the first service (right or wrong) to lose a program when the budget axe falls is the Army.

There is some talk of making a Joint Acquisitions Command (a la Joint-SOCOM but for Pogues and REMFs) to help streamline the DoD acquisition process. If this happens just pray that the Navy or the Air Force gets the top slot. We aren't perfect by any means but dear god we are better than the Army when it comes to this stuff.

I don't want anyone here thinking that I am bashing on the Army. They are great at what they do and vital to the security and goals of our country. They just aren't very good at running acquisition programs. Read about the acq program for the M-16 and the Bradley for examples of this.

They are asking for $80M because they probably need $55M or some such. Ask for more than you need and then graciously take a cut to show you are willing to compromise

Having money for this will most likely lead to a Request For Proposal (RFP). A standard RFP will ask for submissions of proposals related to a set of requirements. After this there will be an initial selection based on the submissions where the real kooks will be weeded out. From there those who selected will be asked to submit detailed reports on the qualities of their firearm. These proposals cost a lot of money and generally will garner the company a minimal fee. In both steps of the process there are probably contractors there to evaluate the information submitted from industry. These contractors might be government sponsored research corporations (Aerospace and MITRE are the two I am most familair with) or may be industry itself (in my shop we have Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman doing our heavy engineering evaluations on space systems*) From there you will have another down select where the process is repeated. Believe it or not $5M is a pretty small amount that can be burned through in a less than a year. It will give us (the Govt) a very good idea of who can do the job and at what cost. The real cost comes in how the contract is then negotiated and how (never if just a matter of how) we can be soaked for the R&D costs.

[TRIGRHAPPY]

Instead, lawmakers would provide $5 million for a study of the joint sidearm requirements, including any service-unique requirements, according to a report accompanying the bill.

This is what i was referring to. Just from the article in this weeks AF Times. It mentioned the AF tried it a while back and got shut down, but they were approved the 5 mil to do the research and comparisons on various handguns i believe. Anyway, nothing in the military happens overnight (well, nothing good) so it will take a while if it does happen.......either way, i'm just happy to see the AF brass doing something us grunts actually agree with.

[M2XD]

Actually, the announcement on the Air Force Future Handgun (AFFH) program came out about a month ago. I had a copy of the on my desk somewhere, but it seems to have gotten lost. Also, the link where I got it seems to be kaput! Here is the story from the Air Force Times when it was announced…

Air Force lays out specs for its next handgun
By Seamus O’Connor - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Apr 21, 2007 7:29:08 EDT

The Air Force is asking gun makers for their input on the design of the next handgun for airmen.

The service issued a memo Monday laying out its demands. The service wants a weapon with a baseline caliber of .45, though gun is required to be reconfigurable for multiple bullet sizes. The ideal weapon would have a service life exceeding 25,000 rounds and has a grip that can be tailored for any user, according to the memo.

In addition, the memo set out specifications for an accompanying silencer. The device must be able to reduce discharge noise to 140 decibels at least, weigh no more than 10 ounces and have a service life of 3,000 to 10,000 rounds.

The required monthly production rate is 7,500 handguns, starting six months after the forthcoming contract is awarded, the document said.

The information brought in by the memo will be used to create a request for proposals at a yet unannounced time.

Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, first introduced the idea of new Air Force handguns at a House Appropriations Committee hearing in February. An unspecified portion of the $7 billion Air Force supplemental budget request is set aside for handgun acquisition.

Honestly, I very seriously doubt this will come to fruition. For one, 9mm is the NATO standard. Secondly, I doubt the USAF will get $7B for new handguns when it is trying to scrap together the cash to put new wings on the A-10 and C-130s, as well as purchase ever F-22 it can get its hands on. Plus, the USAF is cutting personnel, and can’t even pay the ones it has…

1 May 2007. The Air Force's top officer (that would be T. Mike, CSAF! ) said that if nearly $1 billion in personnel funds taken from the service to pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't restored by the end of the summer, Airmen and civilian employees might not get their pay. Due to a congressional delay in approving a wartime supplemental funding bill this year, the Pentagon pulled about $880 million from the Air Force's personnel accounts to make up for a shortfall it warned lawmakers would come in mid-April.

So other than specific personnel and/or units (read: AFSOC), I doubt the USAF will get a .45ACP for the general force.

As for hollow points, the Hague Convention of 1899, specifically Declaration III prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body. However, that doesn't stop most police forces and civilians (myself included) from using them; but it does prohibit military forces from doing so.

Cheers! M2

[billamj]

Hell, when I was in they were still issuing the old S&W Combat Masterpiece. I would have been thrilled with the M9. The big rumor going around in those days was that they were looking at the BHP. I've got to agree though if they are really looking into a 45 it is well past time due. Go AF!

[Margana]

As this is a handgun forum, there is always interest in what active duty military or LEO may carry. However, especially in the military, the sidearm is defensive in purpose and, with rare exceptions, not a primary, offensive weapon. Therefore, as long as there are more worthy programs in development-a new side arm is not going to be a priority item.

The most prevalent handgun in the world is the 9X18 AKA Makarov. I believe there is an estimate that 20 Million were made in the last 50 years. China, and the Soviet block countries issued this to their armies and police. It is a single stack gun with ballistics closer to a .380 ACP. Compact, reasonably reliable. Tiny sights. Useful only at close (point blank) distances due to the sights and awful trigger. Crude, easy to mass produce.

It would be neat to be issued an HK .45 ACP Compact. But not likely to happen in the near future. It took Germany 50 years to drop the P38/P1 sidearm (they are transitioning to an HK 9mm).

As for a new sidearm for the military; it will very likely have an exposed hammer and a manual safety. I think Uncle Sam does not like the idea of young men and women carrying striker fired guns (such as the Glock) where the platoon NCOs cannot, at a glance, tell if the handgun is in a condition to fire.

In Austria, the home of the Glock, I think you can get away with the doctrine that all guns are loaded and will fire and that an exposed hammer or safety is not needed....But their army is much smaller and perhaps, dare I say, better educated....

[jacob.sebens]

I'd just like to throw out one thing...all the M9s I see are in holsters that shield the safety from view. So you can't tell whether the handgun is in a condition to fire with a glance; you would in fact have to order the soldier to draw the weapon and show you the safety.

[jeepinbanditrider]

Originally Posted by jacob.sebens

I'd just like to throw out one thing...all the M9s I see are in holsters that shield the safety from view. So you can't tell whether the handgun is in a condition to fire with a glance; you would in fact have to order the soldier to draw the weapon and show you the safety.

This is true issue holsters for the M9 (except for MPs and if you choose so a thigh holster if you are in theater) cover the ENTIRE pistol. It makes getting to it in a hurry if you have to a bad deal for you.

I still don't understand why we are dumping boatloads of money into programs like the F-22 and the JSF. The only threat that we MAY need to use them against is the Chinese and if it ever comes to that they will have us beat with sheer numbers.

[CountryShooter]

Just seen where the military is getting them for $263, I'll believe that if I get to see the bill and the check for them.