US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
LSAT is not canned it's just not targeted for production yet. It's a technology program not a system program in fact in June of 2014 the Army expanded it into 7.62 mm.
It's a Development program for ammo weight reduction through Cased Telescoped or Caseless Telescoped ammunition types. The Demonstrator for the system is the LSAT LMG. Eventually though the LSAT LMG may lead to a Production replacement for the M249SAW and M240L Infantry Medium Machine guns with the possibility of eventually moving into a Infantry carbine either through modification of a existing system like M4A1 or development of a new system like the recently shown Canadian system Which uses Cased Telescoped rounds possibly developed by LSAT. Because of the small arms Industry in the US, China, Russia, All of NATo is based on Conventional cased rounds of Copper, Brass or Steel with a few small polymer cased makers introducing LSAT would mean a total overhaul of the existing logistics system.
It's a Development program for ammo weight reduction through Cased Telescoped or Caseless Telescoped ammunition types. The Demonstrator for the system is the LSAT LMG. Eventually though the LSAT LMG may lead to a Production replacement for the M249SAW and M240L Infantry Medium Machine guns with the possibility of eventually moving into a Infantry carbine either through modification of a existing system like M4A1 or development of a new system like the recently shown Canadian system Which uses Cased Telescoped rounds possibly developed by LSAT. Because of the small arms Industry in the US, China, Russia, All of NATo is based on Conventional cased rounds of Copper, Brass or Steel with a few small polymer cased makers introducing LSAT would mean a total overhaul of the existing logistics system.
It still works, and in spite of some who proclaim it lacks stopping power??? (very small caliber?), most of our troops prolly don't want to upgrade to 7.62 with its significantly more pronounced recoil, and greater weight to carry a given number of rounds??
I happen to like it, it is very easy to make good hits at long range, the key remains shot placement, not always a high priority under battle field conditions, but still necessary for one shot stops, of which the 5.56 remains very capable. It does make it easy to lay down a field of fire, which may be very effective for suppression of enemy fire??
I would add that almost every AR platform rifle I have fired is "capable" of 1 moa accuracy, but some are picky, my own rifle likes the Colt 20 round magazines and a bullet of 62+ grs, it has a 1 in 8 twist. Cheap mags and cheap ammo--- its a priss and will NOT deliver? LOL
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
well Brat, LSAT Is all That ... < (He-he Rhymes)
Lsat Aims to create types of rounds that have performance Greater then or Equal to the current Issue main line infantry round families but with weight reduction of 40% or better.
The a stock M249 SAW used by US Forces with a full belt tips the scales at about 22 pounds 17 pounds empty the lightest version of that the Mk46mod1 used by US Army rangers drops that down to 15.44 pounds empty. and still needs 5 pounds of ammo.
for another base line The STK Ultimax 100 with 100 round drum weighs 15 pounds
now Tested versions of LSAT LMG have produced a system the is 9.8 pounds empty ( cased telescope ammo) and has achieved as of 2008 a 33%- 40% weight reduction of Cased ammo vs current ammo ( note LSAT wants a 150 round belt) so translation. A LMG with a 150 round belt weighing in at less then 14 pounds ( That's a rough as I don't have data on the weight of 150 rounds worth of polymer links) That means Brat That the LMG gunner of a Army squad could carry more ammo and shoulder fire there weapon more comfortably leading to more accuracy. now the ammo specs I listed are based on the currently available data of LSAT from 2008 that data is spec'd for 5.56mm.
Textron systems is also contracted to develop carbines for LSAT 4 designs 2 cased telescoped 2 caseless telescoped.
lets play some number games.
currently a 30 round loaded AR mag is lets see a .4lb magazine + 1.015 for a 30 round load of conventional nato = 1.415 pounds.
The Target Weight intended for the XM8 Program back in 2003 or so was 5.7 pounds for a 12.5 inch barrel baseline carbine. The end weight resulted was 7.5 ( I am guessing Loaded ) . a loaded M4A1 is the same weight sans any optic (XM8 had one built in). The lightest AR I know of is the which is 3.6 pounds (11 inch barrel) but load it with ammo and it's back up to 4.85 pounds now just for kicks image that same 3.6 pounds but using a LSAT Ammo type lets keep the magazine at .4lbs now 30 rounds of LSAT Cased Telescoped .64lbs = 1.04 pounds +3.6 pounds of rifle = 4.64 pounds. That's a lighter then the XM8's target ( even if you add a inch and a half worth of barrel) . Less then the empty weight of a MK18 (5.88 pounds empty) in fact that is less then the 6.6 pounds of a FN P90. in fact that is about half a pound heavier then the HK Mp7A1 Think about that A PDW weight Assault Rifle Carbine.
The latest known on the LSAT Carbine is that the Army is keeping it the same weight as the M4 but with a 15.5 inch barrel. Its all still developmental not prime time ready but by 2025
Lsat Aims to create types of rounds that have performance Greater then or Equal to the current Issue main line infantry round families but with weight reduction of 40% or better.
The a stock M249 SAW used by US Forces with a full belt tips the scales at about 22 pounds 17 pounds empty the lightest version of that the Mk46mod1 used by US Army rangers drops that down to 15.44 pounds empty. and still needs 5 pounds of ammo.
for another base line The STK Ultimax 100 with 100 round drum weighs 15 pounds
now Tested versions of LSAT LMG have produced a system the is 9.8 pounds empty ( cased telescope ammo) and has achieved as of 2008 a 33%- 40% weight reduction of Cased ammo vs current ammo ( note LSAT wants a 150 round belt) so translation. A LMG with a 150 round belt weighing in at less then 14 pounds ( That's a rough as I don't have data on the weight of 150 rounds worth of polymer links) That means Brat That the LMG gunner of a Army squad could carry more ammo and shoulder fire there weapon more comfortably leading to more accuracy. now the ammo specs I listed are based on the currently available data of LSAT from 2008 that data is spec'd for 5.56mm.
Textron systems is also contracted to develop carbines for LSAT 4 designs 2 cased telescoped 2 caseless telescoped.
lets play some number games.
currently a 30 round loaded AR mag is lets see a .4lb magazine + 1.015 for a 30 round load of conventional nato = 1.415 pounds.
The Target Weight intended for the XM8 Program back in 2003 or so was 5.7 pounds for a 12.5 inch barrel baseline carbine. The end weight resulted was 7.5 ( I am guessing Loaded ) . a loaded M4A1 is the same weight sans any optic (XM8 had one built in). The lightest AR I know of is the which is 3.6 pounds (11 inch barrel) but load it with ammo and it's back up to 4.85 pounds now just for kicks image that same 3.6 pounds but using a LSAT Ammo type lets keep the magazine at .4lbs now 30 rounds of LSAT Cased Telescoped .64lbs = 1.04 pounds +3.6 pounds of rifle = 4.64 pounds. That's a lighter then the XM8's target ( even if you add a inch and a half worth of barrel) . Less then the empty weight of a MK18 (5.88 pounds empty) in fact that is less then the 6.6 pounds of a FN P90. in fact that is about half a pound heavier then the HK Mp7A1 Think about that A PDW weight Assault Rifle Carbine.
The latest known on the LSAT Carbine is that the Army is keeping it the same weight as the M4 but with a 15.5 inch barrel. Its all still developmental not prime time ready but by 2025
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
The planned approach of using cost plus for the LRS-B program is not a good idea in my view. There is no incentive nor penalty to keep within budget. The target of $550 million per plane looks to be at risk before the program has even started. The main reason for not using fixed price contract is that there is no good handle on cost given that the program is dealing with cutting edge technology. Both statements are rather contradictory and delusional when read to its conclusion - unfortunately.
It seems obvious that Admiral Greenert is NOT a firm believer in stealth, but does like "burning down" the other guys signals with that Growler. Me thinks he is conflicted, actually I think he's missing it, one of the reasons the sec-def and joint chiefs blew the F-22 off, they just don't get-it??? Ground-pounders????
Brumby
Major
My reading of the article suggest to me that the CNO is a firmer believer in full spectrum electronic warfare because of the likely task that they will be assigned. Given that their strike packages are likely a mix of F-18/F-35, it is their belief that being able to dominate the full spectrum will enhance their mission effectiveness. I think both sides have their own compelling reasons.
Bernard
Junior Member
My question is the U.S just doesn't want to spend the money on a new Ice breaker? Like the article said, why don't they bring in all the nations that are around the arctic circle? (except Russia ofc). And all build the same set of ships for each country to bring costs down. A heavy, medium, light, design. And each order how many they deem their country needs.
Last edited:
Sivestre, your comment in response to Benard's question/comment about Ice Breakers...had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what he said!Silvestre said:
You talked about Apache helicopters when responding to Ice Breakers.
It makes no sense...so I deleted it.
This is a US Military NEWS Thread. Comment on US Military News articles that are posted...or post your own breaking US Military News articles.
It is not a place to make inane comments to other people that have nothing to do with what they posted.
Thanks.
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION.
Last edited: