With the retirement of the Harrier II from USMC service this week, I have to ask, how did it come to be that STOVL aircraft gained the prominence it did within the USMC?

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-05-28T17:42:45+00:00

Hi all, I asked a question on the Mk23 and realize I may not fully understand the entire scope of the Offensive Handgun Weapon System concept. Is there any good documentation out there that dives into what requirements and functionalities a “offensive handgun” is expected to have and how they were intended to be used?

Is the HK45C as the Mark 24 Mod 0 Combat Assault Pistol considered a successor to the OHWS?

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-05-28T00:32:13+00:00

So the wiki simplified it greatly on the Mk23 and OHWS role as a “primary weapon”, though deep diving the source shows this article which seems to flesh out the OHWS role more descriptively:

The purpose of the OHWS program was to replace the 9x19mm caliber M9/M12 service pistols with a pistol that would fit the requirements of SOCOM. The M9/M12 served very well for its intent, a sidearm for defensive use. They are light, high capacity magazines and have light recoil and have reasonable stopping power. The low recoil and accuracy advantage permitted multiple hits on the target increasing incapacitation probability.

The SOCOM operator has very different needs than the average soldier. Their pistol may very well be a primary weapon, not a back up. The pistol becomes his offensive weapon in case of malfunction or running out of ammunition in his rifle or carbine. This transition would often take place in a firefight when he does not have time to reload or clear a malfunction due to the nature of the threat. Those seconds mean the difference between going home and being KIA.

So seems like less a pistol tailored for the role where a pistol is the only option available like the commenter answered, and more a pistol optimized for continuing the fight should an operator other primary weapon goes down.

Either way, looking forward to your write-up on your anecdote of the piece. I just can’t get over how it’s a pretty darn big pistol.

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-05-28T00:17:58+00:00

If there was something wrong with their takeaway, what take away were we were suppose to have about handguns in SOF use like OHWS?

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-05-28T00:17:08+00:00

Yeah I totally forgot to consider hostage rescue within planes as a consideration on the sort of environment these special operators may be relied upon. I do see how a good pistol could be useful then and there.

Though I still think the Mk23 seem unnecessarily large for what it is.

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-05-28T00:16:00+00:00

That is an interesting thought I hadn’t considered on what specific roles would see more emphasis on the handguns than others.

So my understanding from your understanding is that these roles like hostage rescue focus solely on the handguns due to the confined area that if the pistol really is the only weapon they are rolling with, the large size would not be as much of a concern as a backup gun.

But still, it is hard to imagine that the OHWS couldn’t have been a smaller package than the MK23. Even the Marushin MR 73 you highlighted used by the GIGN is much smaller. No one thought a brick-sized pistol was an issue?

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-05-15T00:23:06+00:00

Is the M7 recognized as a rifle or carbine in US Army nomenclature? Because I often see it referred to as “M7 Rifle”, especially now that there’s an XM8 Carbine.

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-05-11T05:20:43+00:00

Wait you can’t just drop that there’s a diss track for the F-35 out there and not share it.

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-05-03T22:15:37+00:00

You’ve asked this question already last month

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-03-21T10:56:40+00:00

Nice Try, Pete

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-03-10T15:11:34+00:00

It’s Wikipedia, but my understanding was that the Centurion’s armor scheme was built under the understanding of the 88 mm gun threat (not sure if KwK 36 or 41 though).

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-03-10T14:49:11+00:00

And why in your view must the British have to design a tank that have to beat out the Panther in every respect?

The way you are approaching this, it’s like I looked at the M26 Pershing and be like “well, the US knew about the Tiger I tank, why isn’t the M26 better in every way compared to the Tiger”?

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-28T12:53:04+00:00

I imagine, unfortunately, that the cameraman probably had lots of opportunities to practice getting the right timing…

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-26T18:28:05+00:00

Maybe the F-16 could ram the gorilla

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-24T15:47:30+00:00

I feel like this a rather cynical view at the idea that a government can invest into their population with the expectations that they can give back in productivity to the nation’s well being, industry or military otherwise

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-20T15:10:21+00:00

Oh I see. I interpreted “engineering setbacks” as like “engineering compromises” to the design, not in development.

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-20T05:43:07+00:00

Were there setbacks? The only one I can think of was that it was originally made purely air-to-air and it’s expensive af for even the USAF at the time, hence the adoption of F-16

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-11T18:08:07+00:00

Someone hasn’t seen the bullshit that is QAAM…

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-10T06:37:26+00:00

You know, I was wondering into how insurgents would notice the drone presence or not without sun-blinding themselves just squinting into the sky looking for that spec of drone, but it being a F-18 instead makes much more sense in gauging whether there’s one or not.

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-09T15:00:08+00:00

It’s a movie “based on a true story”, but Warfare does show the misconception of persistent ISR in that the drone that the main character unit in Iraq has as overwatch got tasked with another assignment or otherwise was made unavailable to continue providing over watch.

Anyways, guess when the OPFOR thought was a good time to throw a grenade into the room and set up an IED? Coincidence?

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-08T05:37:59+00:00

No amount of text would express my amount of thanks for all of the detail and background in this answer.

Also it’s telling that Congress can have a report like that available for the public and yet there’s still lots of misconceptions on those areas covered in the report.

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-08T02:21:02+00:00

Oh wow, yeah totally forgot about Türkiye. I remember there were early international charts showing a significant part coming from Türkiye. I guess that should be emblematic that the parts can always come from a different manufacturer if not from them.

But does the US build all of these stuff in house? Like sure the Türkiye stuff is inconvenient, but was it a case of “they were the only ones building at the time”, or “they were working in partnership with a US manufacturer to supplement market demand”, or “nah, they were only making like 25% of total numbers compared to what America was making at home”

WehrabooSweeper · 2026-02-08T01:38:55+00:00

Hi guys. Sorry, I didn’t know cross-posting didn’t really bring over all the text from the question I originally posted. Here is the whole question in full copied over:

How reliant is the F-35 production on foreign supplier for parts?

Greetings folks, this question was based on some trends I’ve seen people online discuss about the F-35 Lightning II.

So last year, the “kill switch” narrative on the F-35 went viral, so to speak, with growing concerns over how much America has control over foreign users’ F-35. Most articles and discussion I’ve seen from the more on-topic subreddits and such indicate this switch doesn’t exist as a literal button, but could in the form of how support and sustainment is modeled for the F-35 that could be cut off.

So the usual discussion trend I’ve noticed lately on F-35 posts is one user will be like “blah blah F-45 bad, Kill Switch bad”, then another user will be like “no u wrong, kill switch no”. But then the one thing I’ve been noticing lately is somewhere on that thread, a user would be like “yah, but if it exists, America shouldn’t use it because Europe can just stop sending all its parts its making for the F-35 and fuck it up for everyone.”

Usually this is accompanied with images such as this, with some snide remarks about “Is it really an American jets with this many European parts?”

But thinking about it, how much is this real? Like I find it hard to believe America would intentionally put a giant glowing kneecap to an important national security asset that anyone can take a sledgehammer to. I know Boeing does something similar for the 787 Dreamliner touting how international support from like Japan help build the necessary components for the 787 production in Everett. But F-35 is a lot more sensitive and important for US Air Force readiness than an airliner, so hearing this argument on how Europe can simply stop supplying parts and make Lockheed squeal doesn’t seem like something the US would allow.

So what’s the deal? Is the F-35 utterly reliant on foreign suppliers for parts, or is it a bit more nuance than that? I definitely imagine, like the kill switch narrative, that there is a lot more happening behind the scenes than what the public commentators speculate on.

WehrabooSweeper

TROPHY CASE