Moderadores: Lepanto, poliorcetes, Edu, Orel
Retired Generals to Lawmakers: Infantrymen Need a More Powerful Rifle
actualizado en 03:41 por Matthew Cox vía Kit Up
Traducir artículo
Two retired Army generals recently told Congress that the Army and Marine Corps should adopt a new infantry rifle with a more powerful cartridge than the current 5.56mm ammunition used in the M4 carbine.
Retired Lt. Gen. John Bednarek and retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr. testified at a May 17 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee’s Airland Subcommittee.
The hearing was held to look at the U.S. military’s future small-arms requirements.
Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, opened the hearing by criticizing the M4 carbine’s 5.56mm round as underpowered.
“There are lots of reports of enemy combatants surviving being hit by multiple 5.56 rounds,” Cotton said. “Now we tried to improve the 5.56 round by developing different versions with greater range and firepower, but I’m not convinced this gives our troops the edge they need, especially if our enemies continue making advances in technology.”
Bednarek agreed.
“It’s time to upgrade to a higher, more lethal caliber weapons system for our infantry ground troops, regardless of service or component, regardless of color or uniform,” he said.
Bednarek is the former chief of the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq. He has served in numerous combat arms leadership positions, including as rifle platoon leader in 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, in 1978 and commander of the 2/75 from 1996 to 1998. He also served in Operation Iraqi Freedom during his time as the assistant division commander for operations in the 25th Infantry Division (Light) from 2005 to 2008.
Bednarek told lawmakers that the 5.56mm ammunition used by the Army and the Corps cannot penetrate the “level two and level three body armor” of adversaries.
“Our capability to eliminate that threat at medium or long range is almost gone,” he said. “So we must have small-arms systems that can stop and can penetrate that increased enemy protection.”
Scales told lawmakers that the M4 carbine, in use by both the Army and the Corps, has an operating system that is “fundamentally flawed.”
“All the things that we could do to marginally improve it aren’t going to make a big difference, because the operating system is literally dependent on a puff of gas that blows a floating bolt back and slides it back into position,” Scales said. “And any amount of dust, in my case, dirt in our soldiers’ rifles — fouling from the round — will cause the weapon to jam.”
Scales is the former commandant of the U.S. Army War College and an artillery officer who was awarded the Silver Star for bravery during the Vietnam War.
Scales said the M4 carbine’s 5.56mm cartridge “is just too small for modern combat. Its lack of mass limits its range to less than 400 meters.”
“I believe that tomorrow’s rifle should be something in a midrange caliber between 6.5mm and 7mm,” he said, adding that the new cartridge could be made almost as light as the 5.56 by using a polymer shell or plastic shell casing.
Scales said the Army has argued that in an era of declining resources, a new rifle will cost more than $2 billion.
“But if we only buy rifles for the infantry, a force that today — Army, Marine and Special Forces of about 50,000 — that total would be reduced to as little as $50 million,” he said.
“The Army and the Marine Corps can keep their current stocks of M4s and M16s, because the vast majority of men and women in the ground services aren’t infantryman. And frankly, for other MOSs like artillery and the admin services, the M4 works just fine.”
Cotton asked why it’s so hard to field a new rifle.
“It’s not a ballistic missile defense system. It’s not a new stealth bomber. It’s not a new aircraft carrier. It’s a rifle. Why is it so hard?” Cotton asked. “Why is the Acquisition Corps say it’s going to take seven years to get a new rifle?”
Scales blamed the acquisition system.
“I hate to say it, but some of the people I’ve talked to in the Army staff recently are telling me that the same regulations that dictate building an F-35 fighter are at play in trying to design and build a little 7-pound piece of plastic and steel,” he said.
Then, perhaps predictably, a lawmaker asked what special operators use.
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, asked, “What do the SEALs use now for a weapon?”
Scales: “They use many things. They use the H&K 416, which is the Heckler and Koch weapon, the one that killed Osama bin Laden.”
King: “Would that be a suitable weapon that would meet the needs that you’ve described?”
Scales: “It would.”
OK, so that’s what happened on Capitol Hill.
Now I’m going to offer my two cents, and I’m sorry but we’ve seen this movie before.
The Army canceled its competition to replace the M4 with an improved carbine in 2013, opting instead to upgrade to the M4A1. Several gunmakers were involved in the five-year effort, including H&K with its 416.
Scales said, “I didn’t come here before the committee to advocate for a weapons maker, but let me say this. Most people will tell you that the H&K system is the best in the world. The Marines just bought — they call it the M27, but, you know, it’s really the H&K 416. It’s the most reliable action in the world.”
Again, I don’t like to inject my opinion but, in this case, I can’t help it. I find it very depressing when lawmakers get involved with weapons decisions, especially small arms.
They mean well, but they use rumors instead of fact-based research to make their point and often search for overly simplistic solutions that are impossible for the military to act upon.
Not to take away from the “credibility” of the witnesses, but I don’t understand why there were no active-duty military members at the hearing. It’s good to hear the unfiltered truth, but I have to question some of the criticism of the 5.56mm round.
I get the argument that soldiers and Marines could benefit from a new cartridge that is more effective than the 5.56 at longer ranges.
The 5.56mm round has had its problems in the past, particularly the M855 round. But the Army’s M855A1 round and Corps’ current MK 318 — a 5.56mm round that’s popular in the special operations community — reportedly have impressive terminal effects on the battlefield.
If the Army and the Marines get serious about a new rifle, I do think the idea of issuing it strictly to infantry and other combat arms units has a lot of merit.
The Marines are currently looking at expanding the role of the M27 infantry automatic rifle and issuing it to infantry units as a replacement for the M4 carbine.
The Army, however, is still unwilling to look at adopting a new infantry rifle unless it is a true leap-ahead in technology.
Thoughts?
Army Admits M4 Round is Under-Powered; Plans for a 7.62mm Alternative
by Matthew Cox
Kit Up / 2017-05-26 19:01
Traducir artículo
The U.S. Army’s chief of staff told Congress the M4 Carbine’s 5.56mm round can’t penetrate modern enemy body armor plates and believes Infantry units need a more powerful rifle than the M4.
Gen. Mark Milley testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the service’s current M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round will not defeat enemy body armor plates similar to the U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.
I wrote a story about this yesterday on Military.com that talks about how the Army has developed a new 7.62mm round that will pierce modern enemy body armor.
This is a really interesting time for Army small arms. The Army started off the year by selecting Sig Sauer to make the service’s new Modular Handgun System, which will replace the M9 pistol.
In April, the Army issued a directed requirement for a new 7.62mm squad designated marksman rifle.
Now Milley wants to give the Army’s most deployable infantry units a 7.62mm alternative to the M4 in case they are thrown into a fight with Russian or North Korean forces equipped with modern rifle plates.
This comes a week after Retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr. told the SASC Airland Subcommittee that the Army should replace the M4 in infantry units with a 6.5mm or 7 mm rifle.
That’s a big challenge for the Army since they have invested so much money into 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO ammunition. That’s probably why Milley wants to field an improved 7.62mm.
Milley told Congress that the Army may not have to buy a new rifle to outfit platoons with this improved 7.62mm round, but I don’t see how that is possible. By the time the Army gets done altering the upper and lower receivers on the M4 to accept the heavier 7.62mm, it’s not an M4 anymore. It’s an AR10 rifle.
There’s a lot of unknowns with this idea. The real question is whether this ambitious plan will become reality or fail just like the service’s recent effort to replace the M4 with an Improved Carbine.
After over 30 years of using the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, it seems the US Army may be moving away from the concept of squad-level belt-fed automatic firepower in favor of a lower-capacity but more precise (and probably magazine-fed) weapon. In a recent Special Notice posted to FBO.gov, the US Army formally announced its intention to replace the M249 with a magazine-fed weapon, dubbed the Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR). The Special Notice also announced a classified set of Industry Days for demonstration of potential NGSAR weapons, to be held July 25-27 of this year. The new Special Notice seems more similar to a Request for Information (RFI) than a Request for Proposal (RFP), and explicitly states that no contracts will be awarded or offers accepted:
No award is intended as a result of this Special Notice nor does the Government intend to pay for information received. Any response to this notice is not an offer and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract.
However, the contract also makes it very clear that the US Army intends to move in this direction, and replace the M249 SAW with what will likely be a magazine-fed weapon:
Follow the The Firearm Blog Scopes & Sights Channel
The Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR) is a single incremental program to meet future force warfighting needs. It is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) in Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and select support units during the next decade. It will combine the firepower and range of a machine gun with the precision and ergonomics of a carbine, yielding capability improvements in accuracy, range, and lethality. The weapon will be lightweight and fire lightweight ammunition with improved lethality. The NGSAR will help to reduce the heavy load that burdens Soldiers and that has a significant negative impact on their mobility, survivability, and firing accuracy. Soldiers will employ the NGSAR against close and extended range targets in all terrains and conditions. The NGSAR will be compatible with and dependent on legacy optics and night vision devices to meet required capabilities. It will also be compatible with the Small Arms Fire Control system currently in development and possess back-up sights. It is anticipated the NGSAR support concept will be consistent with (comparable to) that of the predecessor M249 SAW involving the Army two level field and sustainment maintenance system. The NGSAR will achieve overmatch by killing stationary, and suppressing moving, threats out to 600 meters (T), and suppressing all threats to a range of 1200 meters (O).
While the unclassified portion of the Special Notice does not have magazine feed as a requirement, both NGSAR concepts presented by Program Manager of Crew Served Weapons Lt. Col Beal at NDIA are portrayed as magazine-fed. Therefore, it seems belt-feeding is unlikely, and that the Army’s focus is on magazine-feeding. Note that the first concept, shown in this post’s title image, dates to at least 2015 when it was included in an NDIA presentation made by Soldier Division Director David Libersat.
Alternate NGSAR concept displayed in Lt. Col. Beal’s presentation at NDIA. It appears to be a bullpup, magazine-fed weapon firing CT ammunition.
Of further note in the RFI is that not only is the weapon’s ammunition intended to weigh 20% less than equivalent brass-cased ammunition, it may also use different caliber ammunition than the existing 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds already in inventory. In addition, the NGSAR is intended to be fully suppressed, with a sound signature low enough to prevent locating and identifying the gunner beyond 300 meters.
You can read the entire Special Notice over at the FedBizOpps website, here.
The US Army’s Program Manager for Individual Weapons has issued a new Request for Information (RFI) to the industry for a new 7.62x51mm Interim Combat Service Rifle, which seeks to bring out the best battle rifles the market has to offer. The RFI, posted at FBO,gov, reads:
DESCRIPTION: This announcement constitutes an official Request for Information (RFI) for an Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR). The U.S. Army, Army Contracting Command – New Jersey at Picatinny Arsenal is conducting a market survey on behalf of Product Manager Individual Weapons to identify potential sources for a combat rifle system.
This Request For Information (RFI) is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any services or hardware. Your response to this RFI will be treated as information only. No entitlement to payment of direct or indirect costs or charges by the Government will arise as a result of contractor submission of responses to this announcement or Government use of such information. No funds have been authorized, appropriated, or received for this effort. The information provided may be used by the Army in developing its Acquisition Strategy, Performance Work Statement and Performance Specification. Interested parties are responsible for adequately marking proprietary or competition sensitive information contained in their response. The Government does not intend to award a contract on the basis of this RFI or to otherwise pay for the information submitted in response to same. The information provided herein is subject to change and in no way binds the Government to pursue any course of action described herein. The U.S. Government is not obligated to notify respondents of the results of this survey.
Desired Attributes of Interim Combat Service Rifle:
• The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered.
• Caliber: 7.62x51mm
• Available barrel lengths, to include 16 and 20 inch barrels, without muzzle device attached.
• Muzzle device capable of or adaptable to auxiliary devices for:
— Compensation of muzzle climb
— Flash suppression
— Sound Suppression
• Fire Control: Safe, Semi-automatic, and fully automatic capable.
• All controls (e.g. selector, charging handle) are ambidextrous and operable by left and right handed users
• Capable of mounting a 1.25 inch wide military sling
• Capable of accepting or mounting the following accessories.
— Forward grip/bi-pod for the weapon
— variable power optic
• Detachable magazine with a minimum capacity of 20 rounds
• Folding or collapsing buttstock adjustable to change the overall length of the weapon
• Foldable backup iron sights calibrated/adjustable to a maximum of 600 meters range
• Weight less than 12lb unloaded and without optic
• Extended Forward Rail
Those looking to make a submission should follow the link to the FedBizOpps website for further information.
It seems that the current theory behind this switch lies with the US Army and Congress’s concern that current 5.56mm ammunition will be unable to penetrate hard ceramic body armors like the Army’s current ESAPI plates without switching to the larger 7.62mm round. While on the surface, this move seems to be logical, its legitimacy thins considerably when the situation is considered in detail. First, neither current 5.56mm nor 7.62mm ball ammunition (M855A1 and M80A1 EPRs) can penetrate ceramic armor at any combat distances, nor could any kind of hypothetical round that did not use a heavy metal. This means that for a 7.62mm rifle to be effective, it must fire not the current M80A1 round, but a tungsten-cored AP round such as M993 or the upcoming XM1158 ADVAP which almost certainly also has a tungsten core. What makes a switch to 7.62mm on this basis strange is that with tungsten-cored ammunition 5.56mm will also penetrate ceramic body armor out to 100-200 meters.
It would be incorrect to suggest that this solution in either caliber is “neat”. Rather, both are less than satisfying for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the extreme limited availability and high cost of tungsten material. Tungsten-cored ammunition is 4-5 times as expensive per round, and cannot be used in “industrial” quantities for large-scale economic war the way that normal ammunition can. Therefore, this solution – in either caliber – is problematic, and the question of what the right solution is if hard ceramic armors are expected to proliferate remains essentially unanswered, even with a 7.62mm ICSR.
All this raises the question: Is the armor issue simply an excuse for a larger-caliber infantry rifle? The suggestion that it might be draws attention to the very serious concerns I presented in my previous article about the ICSR effort. If the supposed benefits of the 7.62mm round in addressing a critical need to defeat next-generation body armor are more or less fiction, then what is so compelling about this move that a litany of major penalties to the rifleman’s effectiveness in both training and combat are deemed acceptable?
charoska escribió:http://www.defensa.com/espana/lanzagranadas-mk19-reemplazara-lag-40-fuerzas-armadas-espanolas
El final del artículo es infumable, pero bueno, algunas revistas tienen que pagar el peaje de la propaganda y defender lo indefendible.
El ET necesita mas lanzagranadas y el LAG-40 no es opción
Roberto Montesa escribió:charoska escribió:http://www.defensa.com/espana/lanzagranadas-mk19-reemplazara-lag-40-fuerzas-armadas-espanolas
El final del artículo es infumable, pero bueno, algunas revistas tienen que pagar el peaje de la propaganda y defender lo indefendible.
El ET necesita mas lanzagranadas y el LAG-40 no es opción
Tan malo es?
De todas formas creo que no se ha continuado con su desarrollo y parece que no sería compatible con las nuevas granadas largas.
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 0 invitados