SavageSun4x4
01-21-2006, 08:15 AM
There is concern about the ability of the 'M-16' and its 5.56 mm round to continue as the primary combat weapon. It has as many detractors as supporters.
The following are discussion notes from a senior level discussion about the neart term of military weapons. Its iteresting to see where the military is going with individual arms and how they think about the issues that are out there. From this a formal briefing will be generated at sometime in the future. The formal briefing will jell up some of these concepts and and begin the process of a formal plan of action.I have not altered it in any way other than to 'X' out names.
*********
The ongoing issues are:
a. XM8 has been canceled
b. M4 has reliability problems with marginal .223 55 grain performance in short barrels with the current gas system.
c. Existing M16 are getting worn out, and OIF/OEF may last for x more years.
d. Some Services may be considering new weapon buys.
The reality is that 'from scratch' new weapons or calibers will take a lot of money and a lot of time.
Therefore, here is the state of play based on informal discussions:
1. The SF SCAR Mark 16 and Mark 17 are in early procurement. The SCAR L Mk 16 is .223 and the SCAR H Mark 17 is 7.62 (however the SCAR is scalable). Since both use the Picatinny rails, there will be a wide range of optics (Eotech, ACOG, Night Vision, etc.). You'll also note the new Mark 262 Mod 1 77 grain .223 ammo performs very well.
2. There will be a new reduced recoil, reduced flash 7.62 round in about 12 months designed to meet new bullet lethality criteria (consolidated FBI and DOD stds). 130 grain at 2,650 fps out of the SCAR H 16" barrel. Will also be a new .223 bullet meeting same criteria.
3. There is a very accurate new M993 armor-piercing 7.62 in the inventory (meet shooters stated need to penetrate walls, autos, etc.).
4. Although folks like to have energetic debates about calibers and guns, the operational reality for a near-term solution has to be a "bird in the hand."
5. A prudent Service would still want lots of testing before fielding. And, you're still looking at 1+ years for any kind of quantity buy I'd guess (budgeting, programming, procuring, etc.). And, any weapon's training subsystem needs to be addressed.
a. Defensive KD marksmanship ranges need to look like a slice of a doctrinally correct defensive perimeter. Defensive fighting positions, aiming stakes, obstacles, ROE, etc. Train like you fight.
b. Targets need to be re-designed to reflect functional lethality and real-world views.
c. Need to move to high-low MOS-based weapon mix and qualification ammunition standards. Infantry et al may need to fire x,000 rounds/year, while REMFs can shoot minimum numbers.
d. Need to develop offensive maneuver live-fire qualification ranges to train to a higher standard as part of the high-low concept.
d. I'd vote for a dedicated MILES-blank 'blue' barrel. No sense wearing out the good stuff with blanks at the Combat Training Centers.
6. The future BOIP/force structure should be a high-low weapons mix.
a. Infantry/Combat Arms/MPs should be firepower experts with intensive high-level training and multiple weapons, sights, and ammo tailorable to meet their METT-T. So, SCAR H Mark 17 for them with new M60s and a sniper team per platoon (maybe LR 7.62 or perhaps .338 Lapua). The M107 .50 needs to be re-designed to reduce recoil and overpressure.
b. Common non-combat arms would be the SCAR L Mark 16 in .223 77 grain, moving to the new bullet in 1-2 years. One sight, probably something like the Eotech. Easy to train and use. Base ammo amount on defensive ranges.
7. Mid-term goal is a bullpup with suppressor. Caliber TBD based on extensive R&D.
8. Bottomline: really almost impossible to field a new caliber in the near-term. The 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, et al are untested wildcats.
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nordic Ammunition Co. (or "Nammo") in Karlsborg, Sweden received an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 5.56mm M995 and 7.62mm M993 armor piercing cartridges. Nammo subsidiary Vanasverken supplies the Swedish Defense forces, and specializes in armor piercing and sniper ammunition development. Their other specialty is a new non-toxic ammunition cartridge.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/usa-pays-88m-to-swedish-firm-for-armor-piercing-bullets/index.php
Notionally, the avg Soldier will have a tough time hitting at 250m. Maybe Distingished Marksman go to 500-600m. The avg non-combat arms Soldier will be doing great to hit at 100m (everyone gets captured by numbers and forgets how far 100m is; besides we qual on KD defensive ranges, not offensive ranges; need far better training & ranges in the future).
Soft targets. Bullet needs to penetrate to vital organs from any angle with maximum tissue disruption, ideally depositing 100% of energy in the target. Should be able to break/penetrate the femur, pelvis, or skull. Hx data suggests a 10mm bullet as a floor.
Trainers want as flat a trajectory as possible to 250m with minimum recoil. Units want low signatures.
Hard targets. AP rounds need to penetrate a helmet, body armor (theirs, not ours), and civilian cars/trucks. BRDM might be a bridge too far, but SLAP rounds have progressed .
70% of combat is around vehicles. 50% at night. Bullpup with adjustable stock and suppressor.
Optical sight mix. Eotech, ACOG, etc. A future integrated laser RF auto-uphill-downhill anti-cant sight?
Given timelines, development, and ongoing OIF/OEF battle, maybe 7.62 is a good interim solution. 7.62 can be tweaked.
Email: XXXX.XXXX@usaac.army.mil ? XXXXXX.XXXXXXXXX@us.army.mil
*********end message********unclassified**********
The following are discussion notes from a senior level discussion about the neart term of military weapons. Its iteresting to see where the military is going with individual arms and how they think about the issues that are out there. From this a formal briefing will be generated at sometime in the future. The formal briefing will jell up some of these concepts and and begin the process of a formal plan of action.I have not altered it in any way other than to 'X' out names.
*********
The ongoing issues are:
a. XM8 has been canceled
b. M4 has reliability problems with marginal .223 55 grain performance in short barrels with the current gas system.
c. Existing M16 are getting worn out, and OIF/OEF may last for x more years.
d. Some Services may be considering new weapon buys.
The reality is that 'from scratch' new weapons or calibers will take a lot of money and a lot of time.
Therefore, here is the state of play based on informal discussions:
1. The SF SCAR Mark 16 and Mark 17 are in early procurement. The SCAR L Mk 16 is .223 and the SCAR H Mark 17 is 7.62 (however the SCAR is scalable). Since both use the Picatinny rails, there will be a wide range of optics (Eotech, ACOG, Night Vision, etc.). You'll also note the new Mark 262 Mod 1 77 grain .223 ammo performs very well.
2. There will be a new reduced recoil, reduced flash 7.62 round in about 12 months designed to meet new bullet lethality criteria (consolidated FBI and DOD stds). 130 grain at 2,650 fps out of the SCAR H 16" barrel. Will also be a new .223 bullet meeting same criteria.
3. There is a very accurate new M993 armor-piercing 7.62 in the inventory (meet shooters stated need to penetrate walls, autos, etc.).
4. Although folks like to have energetic debates about calibers and guns, the operational reality for a near-term solution has to be a "bird in the hand."
5. A prudent Service would still want lots of testing before fielding. And, you're still looking at 1+ years for any kind of quantity buy I'd guess (budgeting, programming, procuring, etc.). And, any weapon's training subsystem needs to be addressed.
a. Defensive KD marksmanship ranges need to look like a slice of a doctrinally correct defensive perimeter. Defensive fighting positions, aiming stakes, obstacles, ROE, etc. Train like you fight.
b. Targets need to be re-designed to reflect functional lethality and real-world views.
c. Need to move to high-low MOS-based weapon mix and qualification ammunition standards. Infantry et al may need to fire x,000 rounds/year, while REMFs can shoot minimum numbers.
d. Need to develop offensive maneuver live-fire qualification ranges to train to a higher standard as part of the high-low concept.
d. I'd vote for a dedicated MILES-blank 'blue' barrel. No sense wearing out the good stuff with blanks at the Combat Training Centers.
6. The future BOIP/force structure should be a high-low weapons mix.
a. Infantry/Combat Arms/MPs should be firepower experts with intensive high-level training and multiple weapons, sights, and ammo tailorable to meet their METT-T. So, SCAR H Mark 17 for them with new M60s and a sniper team per platoon (maybe LR 7.62 or perhaps .338 Lapua). The M107 .50 needs to be re-designed to reduce recoil and overpressure.
b. Common non-combat arms would be the SCAR L Mark 16 in .223 77 grain, moving to the new bullet in 1-2 years. One sight, probably something like the Eotech. Easy to train and use. Base ammo amount on defensive ranges.
7. Mid-term goal is a bullpup with suppressor. Caliber TBD based on extensive R&D.
8. Bottomline: really almost impossible to field a new caliber in the near-term. The 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, et al are untested wildcats.
x xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nordic Ammunition Co. (or "Nammo") in Karlsborg, Sweden received an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for 5.56mm M995 and 7.62mm M993 armor piercing cartridges. Nammo subsidiary Vanasverken supplies the Swedish Defense forces, and specializes in armor piercing and sniper ammunition development. Their other specialty is a new non-toxic ammunition cartridge.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/usa-pays-88m-to-swedish-firm-for-armor-piercing-bullets/index.php
Notionally, the avg Soldier will have a tough time hitting at 250m. Maybe Distingished Marksman go to 500-600m. The avg non-combat arms Soldier will be doing great to hit at 100m (everyone gets captured by numbers and forgets how far 100m is; besides we qual on KD defensive ranges, not offensive ranges; need far better training & ranges in the future).
Soft targets. Bullet needs to penetrate to vital organs from any angle with maximum tissue disruption, ideally depositing 100% of energy in the target. Should be able to break/penetrate the femur, pelvis, or skull. Hx data suggests a 10mm bullet as a floor.
Trainers want as flat a trajectory as possible to 250m with minimum recoil. Units want low signatures.
Hard targets. AP rounds need to penetrate a helmet, body armor (theirs, not ours), and civilian cars/trucks. BRDM might be a bridge too far, but SLAP rounds have progressed .
70% of combat is around vehicles. 50% at night. Bullpup with adjustable stock and suppressor.
Optical sight mix. Eotech, ACOG, etc. A future integrated laser RF auto-uphill-downhill anti-cant sight?
Given timelines, development, and ongoing OIF/OEF battle, maybe 7.62 is a good interim solution. 7.62 can be tweaked.
Email: XXXX.XXXX@usaac.army.mil ? XXXXXX.XXXXXXXXX@us.army.mil
*********end message********unclassified**********