Talk:Advanced Individual Combat Weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

1 Grenade Launcher
2 Redirect

[edit] Grenade Launcher

hey i'm a little curious as to how this greande launcher reloads, it may be a little like the Metal Storm VLE pistol, where it inserts a tube into the back, the tube contains the rounds in a line. please if some one knows how the grenade launcher reloads then post a reply :) Frexe

Yes, that is how it realoads. :)--Never29 09:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Copied from User talk:Aaron Brenneman.
The redirect you did to AICW has completely vandalised the page and I do not think you understand anything about the subject matter. You have redirected AICW to Metal Storm for no apparent reason, further AICW is not the property of Metal Storm but DSTO. Can you please explain what you are doing here? --Never29 08:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Never,
Thanks for opening some dialog about this.

Firstly my edit summary said "#REDIRECT Metal Storm as this weapon is not in production." Which pretty much sums it up. For evidence, look at the references provided in the article.

Metal Storm press release that states "31 August 2005 Metal Storm Limited (ASX trading code: MST and NASDAQ Small Cap ticker symbol MTSX) today announced the successful test firing of the Advanced Individual Combat Weapon (AICW)".
Metal Storm "CEO Corner" on September 8 2005 makes it clear that there has been no movement at the station when it says, "Since the demonstration, we have been in discussions with a number of potential industry partners about taking the AICW concept forward as a commercial project. Watch this space."
world.guns.ru website puts this squarely into WP:NOT a crystal ball a crystal ball when it states "At the present time AICW weapons are available only as the "3rd generation technology demonstartors", that completed first live-fire trials (as a complete system) in the summer of 2005. Current Australian MOD plans state that ADF may start to purchase AICW systems in around 2010-2012."

So the options for this article (which looks quite good but needs some NPOVing to reduce the advertorial tone) appear to be

Merge into the Metal Storm article, or
Be sent to AfD as advertising.

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Redirect !!

Wiki has many other noteable experimental or developmental weapons. The OICW for one is a direct competitior to AICW (AICW is better) yet is not in production nor will it be after US DoD abandonded the weapon. To roll AICW into Metal Storm is wrong and improper. AICW wasn't even developed by Metal Storm they were simply a partner. Further attempts to delete this page are only petty vandalism and will be reported as such. Blargon 00:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Blargon, thanks for discussing this. The Metal Storm homepage is pretty clear that this "partnership" still means that they'll be the ones filling the orders. Do we have any evidence that this is any more notable than the thousands of projects that DSTO (not to mention their overseas counterparts) have running every minute? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm its only the biggest leap in technology for the last 400 years

I think that justifies its inclusion and separation from other projects worked on by DSTO. It is like saying the nuclear bomb should not be included on wiki in its own right because it is not yet available for production. You do understand the significance of AICW? It is a scoop. In terms of defence it is the nuclear bomb. It changes everything. --Never29 06:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is combat in 1605.

Four hundred years? That makes this bigger than the nuclear bomb. This is a rifle and a grenade launcher stuck together. The MRE made a bigger impact than this will, if it ever goes to production. And, even if were the biggest thing since, say, the rifle, we still shouldn't include it until it gains notability. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we don't do "scoops."
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Expert or Wiki Nerd?

There is a reason why AICW is not in production yet, the technology is way too advanced - they have only just discovered that the concept is feasible (within the realms of physics) Before that nobody could combine kenetic energy to integrate components. That is why the United States government spent over $100 MILLION dollars trying to develop it (Source DSTO press release, July 2005) and eventually gave up. You are saying that it is a scoop and wikipedia is a tertiary source; implying AICW is not "notable". That is so silly i will not even argue it, but i will just link you to the School of Defence studies at Ausralian National University. You can read what they have to say. But of course, if a Professory of Defence Studies from ANU, a tertiary institution ranked 16th in the WORLD by the Times Higher Education Supplement, is not a reputable enough source, i don't know what is. So whats next, discredit the research of Harvard, and Columbia? The ovarian cancer vaccine is not notable because its only in trial stages?

How much technical knowledge of defence and weaponary do you have, Brenneman, or are you just a gun buff? --Never29 09:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/sdsc/publications.php

Umm, where to begin?

Ok, how about "kinetic energy weapon"? Marketing hype aside, if I throw a rock at your head, it's delivering kinetic energy. If there is some super-sekrit cutting edge something about this proposed weapon, it's not in the article.
Government spending does not equal notability. That's what governments do is spend money. And $100M... you mean like was spent to develop innovative approaches to promote healthy marriages?
Actually, you said that it was a "scoop". If we have reputable coverage that demonstrates notability, that's one thing. The links provided in the article did not. Your link is a bit vague. Was there some publication in particular there you wanted to show?
Finally, as to my background, to play the man and not the ball is a sure sign of a weak argument.
brenneman ^(t) 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is a research paper presented by Professor Desmond Ball posted up there at the recent Warfare Conference explaining how as the capablities of tanks to fight in urban areas are increasingly constrained (low firing range) dense targets and how AICW is a breakthrough in solving the infeasability of long held assumptions about warfare because it is light enough to be used by foot soldiers. The article was really about Urban Warfare and not AICW, but it defines and describes AICW in one section as the weapon that will change everything - the end of "modern" rifle combat as we know it. ----Never2902:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, if that isnt a contradiction i dont know what is! You have basically accepted you don't understand the concepts of AICW, basic defence or the scientific aspects of weaponary, yet argue AICW is non notable, when its entire notability is based on the fact it is a technological revolution, the first feasible integration of two weapons into one that is usable by an individaul (not done since the bayonet). When i question your obvious lack of knowledge from the statements you have made, you accuse me of 'playing the man, not the ball'. I'm not trying to make this personal on purpose, and I have a lot of respect for you, but perhaps you have over-edited what appeared to be a mere bad-vertorial for a firearm which is actually a scientific breakthrough for the Defence Industry. ----Never29 02:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC

Hmm. You may not have noticed this, but I'm trying to be nice. It wouldn't hurt for you to do the same. Please try to contain your enthusiasm and be precise, ok?

I notice that you've ignored my first two points, and replied to the fourth by again attacking me, as opposed to countering my arguments.
Have a look at the first version of this page. It pretty much sums up what this is: a slight upgrade on existing technology. Are you not aware that, right as I am typing this, someone is firing a combined rifle/grenade launcher somewhere?
While the Metal Storm concept is interesting, and anything that lightens the burden that infantry carry is good, how exactly has it only just been demonstrated to be "within the realms of physics" as you say? Just what is it that you think this is?
Penultimately, the page you've linked to has four papers and several working paper authored by Desmond Ball. None of these appear to be what you're referring to.

[1] Transforming the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for Information Superiority (from 2005)
[2] Masters of Terror: Indonesia's Military and Violence in East Timor in 1999 (from 2002)
[3] The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP): Its Record and Its Prospects (from 2001)
[4] Maintaining the Strategic Edge: The Defence of Australia in 2015 edited (from 1999)

And finally, what exactly are your qualifications? I don't normally talk much about my background. I have served, and do have a science degree or two. Do you really want specifics?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we are blowing things out of proportion, we are arguing about something that from both our discussions is definately notable enough to be on wiki - it is just the degree of notability we can't agree on, so lets agree to disagree. :)--Never29 15:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I was in some degree responding the tone of your first message. I'm happy with a de-advertised article here.
  brenneman ^(t)^(c) 16:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

yes I am happy with the current state of the article aswell. Originally I just wanted to attribute my sources; such as Stephen Forbes, the officer in charge of the AICW Project. I was unaware that was considered "bad-vertorial" no worries, Im happy with the current article, its good we could work together for the greater good. --Never29 23:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)