US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Very high resolution look at some of the control surfaces for the B-21.
Nah it's not for NGSW, its for the US SOF and their attempts to replace 5.56 and 7.62 with a more accurate round. Unlike 6.8 Kickback 6.5 LICC (that name will never not be funny, thanks FN) is driven around being able to be easily reconfigured into 5.56 for ppl who don't need the extra punch.
As for why the US has been chasing all these rounds, its "Overmatch" based upon very *very* unwise decisions in Afghanistan. To quote the Army at the start of the 6.5 --> 6.8 change:
"The Next Generation Squad Weapons Team structured an innovative selection and contracting approach to identify and deliver technologically advanced small arms and ammunition that provide overmatch against peer and near peer threats."
[US Army Rifle Program History]
Concurrently to the NGSW push there is the which was also about Overmatch(tm) sorry for the powerpoint- its rough, but the general timeline of things goes like this:
In the 1990s, the US Army was looking new rifles. This gets us the XM29 OCIW and later XM8. The Army does not think it really important to try and rush them out, as we have (two) future solider programs on going. the XM29 will make it to 2001 before being split into the dedicated rifle and AB grenade launcher (XM25)
In 2004, the US Army starts the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies- which *is not* designed to make a rifle, only a new machine gun.
Similarly, the XM8 is going through trials at this point. The 40mm GL is liked, the rifle is okay. However, the Army is entering its COIN phase so the rifle is not likely to be adopted even if it trials well.
The LSAT and XM8 continue to roll in limbo, until 2008. XM8 is dropped as the US Army doesn't want to *pay* for the thing, and the LSAT Machine Gun is entering very limited ideas with its caseless and polymer ammo. In 2010, Textron (having bought AAI) have to change the caseless ammo as it's based on the G11's patent and is not healthy for the environment. By 2012 they have built several LMGs and two rifles.
The Army, tests the Machine Guns and they love them. Troops enjoy having a MG that weighs about the same as a rifle with all its attachments and 150 rounds of 5.56 caseless. Both Caseless and CT rounds perform well even hitting things like "cook off times being on par with cased ammo" (They achieve this by being modern and also because we have good plastics but shh) The only issue the Army sees is!
"Why do we need this rifle, we're going to be leaving Afghanistan by 2014 at the latest." So, LSAT is rolled into the NGSW program.
NGSW starts out as just "make 5.56 do the job of 7.62 but in a way that isn't too ground breaking." Which is where the 6.5/6.8 debate comes from. US SOF want their own super round and start the LICP (later LICC) program.
We jump to 2016, as both the LICC and NGSW programs have picked a solution. US SOF want 6.5, US Army wants 7.62- so they will take 6.8x51mm because they decide making the rifles hit further. From that decision we end up with the SIG rifle and for the US SOF the FN IWS.
FN's idea was to make a round that could be both poly or brass because US SOF did not care about weight.
SIG's round is brass-steel hybrid because all they had to do was be "lighter than 7.62x51" which they did!* [end]
*rules lawyering is how they also win the pistol contract btw
I have followed these programs for way to long, because I've always argued for upgrades to the M16, updates to 5.56 or just biting the bullet and eating the costs of caseless ammo. Instead the US Army wishes to fight the last war, because learning from it would take answering some painful questions- and don't get me started on whatever the hell the USAF's upto.
Holy hell, that is extremely contrived. What's with small branches calling for their own rifles and rounds. I can already see the logi crying. I feel like if they didn't put the "no groundbreaking" rule in there, then they probrably could've made a good rifle that would've satsified both and been economically more effecient.
I agree with the caseless ammo, specifically the LSAT. Both the LMG and the AR looked like the next evolutionary step for infantry small arms. Not sure what they were thinking.
I don't know what you mean by the USAF, but I'm intrigued. Didn't know the air force even had an interest in small arms besides garand thumb. What would the air force want in a small arms that couldn't be done with any other rifles that are already in use?
Last edited:
Oh I was more meaning "insane fucking things in procurement" but I would also expect USAF SOF (maybe even security forces) just updating the M16/M4. Yeah the US Military has been on some next levels of decisions made by people who will never be effected by them.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The XM8 had a few other issues going against it the biggest being how the project justification was worked. In the U.S. Army the Infantry school writes a justification for adopting a new system. In the case of the XM8 that didn’t happen. Instead they were using the XM29’s justification. Though the XM8 was spun off the XM29. The two systems were dramatically different. The XM8 on its own also suffered issues that it never meet its weight objectives and couldn’t unless the ammunition was completely redesigned from the 5.56x45mm in issue, yet that wasn’t part of the project. Ultimately you had a weapon that was only a marginal improvement over the in service M4A1 but at a significant costs of resources. As to accommodate the XM8 would have required at that point unavailable polymer cased ammunition, a complete shift of the armies accessories to PCAPS, a replacement of existing Magazines and Magazine pouches to accommodate the larger G36 magazines. Plus any future devices for the XM8 like optics would have to meet PCAPs. A system that other in service weapons didn’t use.
Not really. It’s a question of industry base. LSAT was a demonstration program not a full up weapons development. It was to show what was possible. However LSATs choices came at a cost.
Caseless ammunition still has issues to be resolved in that to adopt caseless ammunition means that the ammunition propellent is the case. Exposure to solvents even water can have a significant negative impact on the system. Because again the case is the propellant it’s possible for the propellant to chip or flake on loading leading to a potential under pressure Or over pressure event in the chamber. You don’t want residual propellant left in the chamber it’s a bad day. Because of the nature of the system it and cases teliscoped ammunition requires a completely different approach to weapons design. The closest thing in conventional weapons design are Bullpup like the F2000 and MDX with forward ejection. These systems haven’t been as popular as hoped either as many of the basic safety procedures are not compatible and the mechanism has a habit of jamming with difficulty clearing it. Those would also be in place with the System Textron was developing. It’s basically a scaled down version of the breach mechanism of the 40mm CTA gun.
That creates both complexity and costs. Since Textron was the only bidder with access to the technology they were the only option if it was chosen.
By contrast both the RM277 and Sig’s winning bids were built on incremental improvements that actually got similar weight savings on ammunition.
The US Army has officially stated that the M4A1 will remain in service for decades. Just returning to its originally intended purpose as a PDW. USARSOC was the ones who place the requirements for the URG-I program. Which is probably the best way to update the M4A1.
The USAF has done some small arms in the past but generally has been very big on it. There SOF element tend to follow the Army and Navy Special warfare who do a lot of it. The last program they did that was unique was the GAU-5A takedown rifle. A specialized weapon for special needs
I find the claim the NGSW is “fighting the last war” contived personally. The U.S. military taught the last war with duffles of cash and most of the fighting was by local forces the U.S. was trying to teach to be a country not a tribe well simultaneously hoping they don’t shoot each other. Yes there was some long range stuff, yet the M4A1 was adopted in place of the M16A4. If it really was all about long range in Afghanistan then it shouldn’t have adopted the M4 as the primary weapon. The M4 trades off some range advantage. The reason it was adopted was it was easier on a patrol. M7 even the latest PIE version is going to be longer thanks to the suppressor and heavier. The whole “fighting the last war” that is at this point an Old Chestnut slapped on the DOD for any choice the goes against the grain. The F22 was “fighting the last war”. New howitzers were “fighting the last war”. Air defense systems in the 90s and 00s “fighting the last war”.
The XM7 is fighting a war designed around pushing the infantry small arms out to 800m. This is entirely because enough of the US Generals complained (when they were leading companies and on as staff) and pushed for bigger bullets in Afghanistan. The US is planning to roll out the rifle to its light forces (Paras, Rangers and a few other forces) and those are the units who lack the heavier weapons to engage threats at range.
The US Army's pushing for "overmatch" because of infantry experiences in Afghanistan which is why back in 2017 there was a whole push by (the same people who green lit the adoption of the XM7/XM250) for the US to hand out 7.62x51 rifles.* Of course the Army quickly shot that program down, citing that "overmatch" would be in the NGSW winner.
The whole fighting the past war would have less water if the Army was not acting like a heavier rifle with less ammo would suddenly create a force more capable of fighting. Very few armies are rolling around with battle rifles and to force the light infantry to carry more weight for less firepower is a decision wrapped up in "we wish to shoot at people from 800m+ away" which is why the complaints about the weapon coming from users have started to be addressed.
*7.62mm Interim Combat Service Rifle (2017-2017 lol)
If the resulting weapon can really shoot 800m away then at least there is an excuse. Instead we get a 3-4 MOA gun that breaks its scope more often than not. Increasing precision probably has priority over trying to increase bullet size. The current M7, especially the shortened version, offer 0 benefits to range and penetration compared to a good old battle rifle.