Joined
·
10,462 Posts
Next Gen Squad Assault Weapon
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
Given the track record of failures, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Spec Ops can handle the small amount of ammo and parts. A bigger commitment to the full US Army, unlikely. Right now our small arms ammo supply includes, 5.56mm 7.62mm, 9mm, .50 Caliber, 40mm (two kinds, with multiple projectile choices, 81mm (multiple), 84mm (multiple) and I will ignore the guided missiles which are sorted differently.
Geoff
Who bets he has missed a couple or three.
Spec Ops can handle the small amount of ammo and parts. A bigger commitment to the full US Army, unlikely. Right now our small arms ammo supply includes, 5.56mm 7.62mm, 9mm, .50 Caliber, 40mm (two kinds, with multiple projectile choices, 81mm (multiple), 84mm (multiple) and I will ignore the guided missiles which are sorted differently.
Geoff
Who bets he has missed a couple or three.
Joined
·
2,484 Posts
No, we are just old and remember B&W TV ads.Am I a bad person because the first thing I thought of was this?
![]()
Geoff
Who had a nice plastic replica of a M-14.
Joined
·
10,462 Posts
Joined
·
2,546 Posts
I saw that article a couple days ago. Since then I've been wondering who's prototype that is and what all the baggage under the hand guard is? If it's GD, maybe a drone hanger?
Snake, I don't remember that item, but I share your puzzlement as to appearance/functionality. Cubical critters display great enthusiasm for loading things down with gee whiz gadgetry that adds complexity/weight but no significant functional advantage.
I've lost track, how long has it been since the 6.8 mm SPC was gonna be the big thing?
Snake, I don't remember that item, but I share your puzzlement as to appearance/functionality. Cubical critters display great enthusiasm for loading things down with gee whiz gadgetry that adds complexity/weight but no significant functional advantage.
I've lost track, how long has it been since the 6.8 mm SPC was gonna be the big thing?
It's all so very interesting, but it's also so very difficult to determine what "big army" will do. Look at all the programs we have had that we were told would be a replacement for the M16 series of rifles. From the very first "One time buy" of M16's the intent was that the M16 would be a "for now" rifle while something "better" was developed. There have been a number of programs just in the past 20 years, let alone the last 50 years.
What I will say is... We will have to make a change at some point.
What has always happened in the past is, we develop up something that may or may not be "better" than the M16, but the Army decides that it either isn't "better" or "better enough" to justify a change. So is this change significant enough?
I say there is a good deal of potential for a "Yes" to that answer. All of the submissions offer logistical advantages over current systems that I believe finally offer something "better enough" to warrant a change.
The ammunition, depending on which is adopted, is anywhere from 15%-30% lighter weight than current 5.56; that's a big freaking deal. And all offer a replacement of the rifle and squad auto; which is another very attractive logistical advantage. And its not a paper tiger like the M14. These rifles CAN work as a carbine, and all can offer limited squad auto capabilities; meaning it has the potential for every rifleman to be a squad auto rifleman (within the limits of the weapon type).
Now factor in the body armor issue. The 5.56 is becoming less and less effective as a military cartridge very day. Now we're a LONG way from the 5.56 being obsolete, but you really want to be ahead of that particular curve, not behind it; and the 6.8 gives you more bullet to work with for specialized AP rounds like tungsten or other "exotic" bullets.
Given the challenges big army is facing currently, these weapons seem to offer decent options to address the issues the army are concerned about.
Now I have no idea if the army will actually adopt the "next gen squad auto", but I will say this. Of all the programs to replace the M16, this one actually makes sense. So adoption at least seems logical where I can't say that for previous programs. And contrary to most "armchair military small arms speculators", I tend to think the Army makes mostly logical decisions in arms acquisition.
What I will say is... We will have to make a change at some point.
What has always happened in the past is, we develop up something that may or may not be "better" than the M16, but the Army decides that it either isn't "better" or "better enough" to justify a change. So is this change significant enough?
I say there is a good deal of potential for a "Yes" to that answer. All of the submissions offer logistical advantages over current systems that I believe finally offer something "better enough" to warrant a change.
The ammunition, depending on which is adopted, is anywhere from 15%-30% lighter weight than current 5.56; that's a big freaking deal. And all offer a replacement of the rifle and squad auto; which is another very attractive logistical advantage. And its not a paper tiger like the M14. These rifles CAN work as a carbine, and all can offer limited squad auto capabilities; meaning it has the potential for every rifleman to be a squad auto rifleman (within the limits of the weapon type).
Now factor in the body armor issue. The 5.56 is becoming less and less effective as a military cartridge very day. Now we're a LONG way from the 5.56 being obsolete, but you really want to be ahead of that particular curve, not behind it; and the 6.8 gives you more bullet to work with for specialized AP rounds like tungsten or other "exotic" bullets.
Given the challenges big army is facing currently, these weapons seem to offer decent options to address the issues the army are concerned about.
Now I have no idea if the army will actually adopt the "next gen squad auto", but I will say this. Of all the programs to replace the M16, this one actually makes sense. So adoption at least seems logical where I can't say that for previous programs. And contrary to most "armchair military small arms speculators", I tend to think the Army makes mostly logical decisions in arms acquisition.
Joined
·
2,546 Posts
The big question is, where do they find the money? What other programs may be shorted? Some other issues are while they're coping with the current missions, exactly what major power missions/threats do they contemplate?
They've been kicking the improved penetration round can around for decades without a decision. Part of that is the missions then under way didn't really justify it, an other is uncertainty about future mission the kicker is budget.
You've got a great deal more faith in institutional decision making than is warranted by historical record.
While not the Army, I've noted that the Marines are discarding their tanks, most of their organic tube artillery and cutting a couple of air units. This is allegedly in preparation for facing the China threat and a possible resumption of island hopping. This means the Corps would be dependent upon Naval air support and that rocket artillery is replacing tube artillery. What replaces the naval gunfire support given the current makeup of the Navy? What replaces the direct fire support capability of the armor units?
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
