Re: Infantry Automatic Rifle
I am a very FIRM believer the IAR concept is flawed to the core.
The Mk46 gives a lightweight assault LMG - don't like the M249/Minimi's weight? - get the Mk46 - just don't expect it to put out the fire that the M249 does for a long time (very thin light weight barrel).
Why on earth do you want to give a MAG fed weapon with a HEAVY barrel out to people? You think the US Army would have learned some lessons from Canada with its experience with the C2 (Automatic rifle variant of the FN FAL), and from the Brits with their L86 LSW that that a bipod and heavier barrel does not make a support weapon... In fact the Brits are now adding the Minimi, and Canada has long switched over to the Minimi and are in the middle of a mid-life rebuild...
You may well be correct Pointblank, but from my personal experience the more I used the Minimi, the less I was impressed with it, especially its reliability during long periods of firing; conversely, and perhaps perversely, my esteem for the MAG-58 has only increased over the years. Originally the pair of C-2s in the Gun Group (replacing the single Bren of old) wasn't a bad idea - but not as good as a MAG, which the Brits were using at the time; when the Section was reorganized in the 80's with two identical Assault Groups instead of separate Gun and Rifle Groups, then things really slipped, until the Minimi replaced the C-2s. Firepower certainly increased, but then the 2-Assault Group Section was optimized for full frontal attacks during mechanized ops; the old Section was optimized for fix 'em (Gun Group) and flank 'em (Rifle Group), mechanized or not.
The other problem with using the Minimi is what it does to endurance and agility; besides the weight of the gun itself, you've got the spare barrel and cleaning kit and ~800 rounds on the gunner. And those belts rattle pretty good inside the box; rounds in mags don't rattle near as much, an important consideration for fighting patrols. In short, ~40 pounds of gun and ammo may be tolerable when doing mechanized ops; but not so good when doing long dismounted ops, or in close quarters. A magazine-fed light machine gun, firing from an open-bolt, might just fit the ticket (and no need for a spare barrel) -
Might.
As to the 5.56mm Mk 46 and similar weapons, those are stripped down to save weight to an extent that make them more or less unsuitable for regular infantry use. Comparing a 7.62mm Mk 48 to a 7.62mm MAG-58, for example, is deceptive; the former is not intended for anything like the constant usage or even Sustained Fire capability that the latter is. Likewise, even replacing the 5.56mm version of the Minimi with its new 7.62mm derivative is not what it seems. Neither is really suited for long periods of heavy firing, though that is of course what they are often used for. There are good reasons that the MAG-58 is as heavy as it is. It needs to be.
The weight savings come at a cost, which is ruggedness, reliability, and service longevity. Fine for Special Forces who may not be using the same weapon month in and month out, who use different weapons for different missions, and who can easily replace a worn weapon after a couple years or even just several months of service use. But for conventional infantry not such a good idea. Many of the weapons intended for Spec Ops might not last more than a few months of constant field use before becoming NS - or seriously malfunctioning in a fire fight.
For my money, if the proposed IAR turns out to be a turkey - and it may or may not be - the next best choice would be to put the MAG at Section level. That of course would penalize agility and endurance once again, but there would be no arguments about firepower, reliability, and durability. Having been both a Section LMG gunner and a Platoon GPMG gunner, I would offer that the MAG is by far the safer bet. But I do hope that the IAR turns out to be more than what first meets the eye. Three of these per Squad/Section might allow me to feel reasonably comfortable with the propsoed new AR/LMG -
provided Infantry weapons handling and Squad/Section tactical training was substantially improved over what it is now. I have some real gripes on those subjects.
