So, while we’re waiting around for the XM-25 to make it into the armory, why not just strap this bad boy onto your M4 and rip out the 40 mike-mike?
You know, it’s been said that the U.S. Army is the best equipped force in the world but I’m really more amazed by what we don’t have that other armies do than what we do have, or what we want to have that others don’t.
Take, for example, the four shot 25mm XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System currently in the works (the XM25 is itself an offshoot of the doomed XM29 OICW thingie). It’s supposed to be effective out to 500 meters against point targets, will have a built in multi-spectrum electro-optical sight, and will have the ability to individually program the burst time on the launched projectiles so that they explode behind or over the target, thus defeating any frontal cover the target might have.
Sounds good on paper, and I’m sure there’s no other Army out there trying to develop a weapon specifically designed to attack a target behind cover, but the reality is, we haven’t got one of these either (yet, and I don’t see these getting issued soon either), and there are a lot of really simple weapons currently in service which could just as easily perform this mission.
Rifle grenades: What’s wrong with rifle grenades? We, the American army, used the hell out of them in WWII and Korea, but they went away after that. Were they not high tech enough, or was this one of those “no guns on jet fighters” decisions, where we decided that the types of wars we’d be fighting in the future would render these weapons obsolete? There are any number of designs out there now that could immediately enter service with the US military as short range (<300m) anti-personnel, anti-tank (ok, anti-APC), dual purpose, individually fired munitions, yet we haven’t got any.
I understand that we have dedicated grenade launchers like the M203 now that can fill the role of the rifle grenade, but the 203 is an individually assigned weapon, and in the standard infantry squad there are only two (one per team) and in the Army’s table driven organizational scheme, if your unit isn’t authorized any (like mine) then you just go without. With a rifle grenade, on the other hand, everyone in the unit has the capability of carrying one or two, and they can be fired by anyone (this capability would enable a commander to stockpile the grenades in a defensive position, or with a support by fire element, without disrupting unit organization by shifting grenadiers around.)
Shoulder fired weapons: Next to the AK-47, the most common weapon carried by the insurgents is the RPG-7. Introduced as a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon in 1961, it is now the most prolific such weapon in the world. What is the US equivalent? The single shot AT-4 (M136.) The US used to have a reloadable shoulder fired weapon, the M1-M20 series rocket launchers (a.k.a “Bazooka” and “Super Bazooka”) but the Bazooka was retired from service during the Vietnam war and replaced by the M72 LAW (tanks and the new ATGMs like the TOW and the Shillelagh would eliminate the need for a short ranged infantry based AT weapon) and later the AT4.
While designed as anti-armor weapons, as the insurgents can attest to, they also serve admirably as “pocket” artillery, and what I wonder about is why we don’t use something similar. We have a number of similar weapons (the Marine Corps has the SMAW and the M3 Carl Gustav is in service with SOCOM forces) in our inventory. The exclusivity of the M3 especially bothers me. Of a similar weight and size of the AT4, it presents a significantly greater capability in that you can reload it and you can fire a variety of munitions through it. Again it would be a lot easier for an infantry platoon to carry a pair of M3s and 40 seven-pound HE projectiles than it would be to carry 40 AT4s. Yet its use is limited to SOCOM, while the regular Army has to settle for the AT4.
Another interesting couple factoids from yesterday’s chat with PEO Gen. Fuller and some of his top honchos is the Army’s search for a new, so-called “modular” pistol.
According to Col. Doug Tamilio, the PM for Soldier weapons, the Army basically took over where the Air Force (who for some reason were running the original program for an M9 replacement) left off. The requirement has been approved already, and the JROC is on board, but the Air Force decided not to fund the program in ’09. But the Army is picking up where the Air Force dropped the ball and taking it through development.
Basically, the Army wants a handgun that can be both modular in caliber, barrel length and grip size.
“Not only in the form, fit function of the weapon, but in the caliber,” Tamilio said.
That seems like a tough requirement to achieve. I know of only a couple handguns on the commercial market that can switch out easily, but this could turn into an armorer’s nightmare in the field.
“Guys who are in air crews may want a specific caliber. And those in direct combat may want a larger caliber,” Tamilio said. He added that the Infantry School has taken a look at the Air Force’s requirement and is preparing a letter to put on top of that that blesses the findings and sends it on to TRADOC and the G-3 for a blessing, then it goes into the POM process for a competition.
My colleague at Army Times Matt Cox asked a good question on top of that, wondering what a new modular combat pistol would do to the service’s search for a personal defense weapon.
Basically, Tamilio said that some people who might get PDWs would instead get pistols. The Army wants carbines across the force, Tamilio said but “there’s a lot of guys exiting trucks, that don’t need to fight the 300–500 meter range, they need that short 200 meter range in. And that’s where the personal defense weapon comes in.”
The pistol will still be issued to “augment the force” for machine gunners, officers and senior NCOs.
“So instead of saying we have a requirement for 275,000 pistols, that may get cut down — so now we say we want 200,000 of those and 50 or 60,000 of the PDWs,” he said.
So in sum, the Army will have a new pistol requirement, a PDW search, a new Improved Carbine requirement and eventually “a new long gun requirement for within the squad.”
We wrote about this back in March…that industry was skeptical that the Army would seriously pursue a subcompact rifle for Joes who can’t carry an M4 but need the punch of a rifle in a pistol package (truck drivers, tankers, pilots, officers).
Well, after talking with Col. Doug Tamilio yesterday about the Wanat report, I came away with the story that the service seems as least to be pretty enthusiastic about the weapon and will move forward on its development.
You saw the teaser yesterday, so I’ll give you a bit more, but I ask that you read the entire story over at Military.com.
I’ll post more on my interview regarding the Wanat report and other topics later this morning.
The Army’s preliminary evaluation tested a host of weapons in different scenarios and conditions, their accuracy at different ranges and how well Joes could control the small weapons with a big punch while firing.
“We tested how Soldiers worked with those weapons and what seems to work form, fit and function better than others,” Tamilio explained. “We got some great data on that.”
Though Tamilio wouldn’t say who participated in the evaluation, an industry source said that about six manufacturers may have submitted weapons for the shoot.
The search for a weapon that delivers a Mike Tyson punch in Sugar Ray Leonard package was included in an Army solicitation last year for a possible alternative to the M-4 carbine. The solicitation left open size, weight, barrel length and caliber, but many companies had already developed so-called personal defense weapons, or PDWs, for contract security teams and other covert operators.
“We found out a lot of good things,” Tamilio said of the early summer evaluation. “There are a lot of good weapons out there [and] Soldiers can hit accurately, hit very well with all of the weapons that were out there.”
“So now it comes down to what are the best parts of all of these?”
Officials with the Army’s soldier weapons office said the Army Infantry School is working on final requirements for the subcompact weapon, and while it may be two years before a Joe commanding a supply convoy gets to sling one of these bantam bad boys, Army officials are moving with deliberate speed to get the program in gear.
“We got a lot of great data,” Tamilio added. “So, now as the Infantry School writes the requirement they’ll be more informed on what they’re looking for.“
And oh, yeah, stay tuned to Military.com tomorrow for a story I’ve got posting on the Army’s subcompact weapon search. Here’s a teaser:
Despite initial industry suspicion that the Army would let the effort die a slow death, the service is moving forward with the development of a compact weapon that shoots like a rifle but slings like a sub gun.
According to the Army official in charge of fielding new weapons for the service, the search for a so-called “subcompact individual weapon system” is moving ahead in earnest. In May, the Army sponsored a user evaluation where Soldiers put subcompact weapons through their paces to see if the idea would stick.
And at least for the brass running the show, it did.
“I’m excited about the subcompact,” said Col. Doug Tamilio, the Army program manager for Soldier weapons, during an Oct. 15 interview with Military.com. “There are a lot of Soldiers today who do not need to carry either a carbine or an M-16, but yet a pistol may just not be enough.”
It’s hard for me to resist, but no, I’m not going to take the bait and riff on the Peace Prize award…
No, no, this is Defense Tech, folks. I wouldn’t possibly tarnish the reputation of this fine blog by wading into politics and policy.
Instead, I’m bringing you a cool story we got from our friends at Tactical Life about a new machine gun the Army is sending over to Afghanistan — a version of the Navy SEALs’ heavy machine gun, the Mk-48.
U.S. Army infantry units are fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan with a special operations forces machine gun thats 30 percent lighter than the standard M240B but still packs the killing power of 7.62mm NATO.
Army weapons officials are fielding several hundred MK 48 MOD 1 machine guns in an effort to lighten the heavy loads ground forces, especially machine-gunners, struggle to carry over the countrys unforgiving terrain. The MK 48, made by FN Manufacturing LLC, was first adopted by Navy SEAL teams in 2000. The elite commando units needed a reliable 7.62mm machine gun that was light enough to carry on fast-moving raids and other special missions.
Its a great assault gun, said Army Col. Doug Tamilio, the head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons, the command that overseas Army small arms.
At 18.26 pounds, the MK 48 is about nine pounds lighter than the 27.5-pound M240B. But the 550 MK 48s being fielded are not the beginning of a move to replace the Armys beloved M240B, also made by FN Manufacturing, Tamilio said. Its a short-term fix until next year when the Army begins fielding the lighter version of the M240Bthe M240L.
The MK 48 fielding is intended to quickly get something in the hands of soldiers to fight with in the mountains of Afghanistan, Tamilio said.
The weapons appearance resembles the M249 squad automatic weapon, also made by FN Manufacturing. It has the same ergonomic fixed polymer stock and pistol grip. But unlike the 5.56mm M249, the MK 48 is chambered for the potent 7.62mm NATO round and is capable of spitting them out at a cyclic rate of fire of 720 rounds per minute.
The MK 48, while highly reliable, wasnt designed to offer the long-term durability found in the M240 series machine gun, said Jim Sharp, deputy director for crew-served weapons for FNH USA. The MK 48s receiver will last about 50,000 rounds compared to the M240s 100,000-round receiver lifespan.
Tamilio agrees. Its a much lighter gun, both in weight and materials, he said, describing how the MK 48s bolt will have to be replaced after about 15,000 rounds while the M240s will last for about 100,000 rounds. Despite its durable reputation, the M240 is too heavy to carry long distances, especially up and down steep mountain trails. In some cases, units have chosen to sacrifice firepower to save weight on multi-day foot patrols in Afghanistans Korengal Valley, by leaving their M240s at their combat outposts, Army officials maintain.
Marines and Soldiers carry enough stuff already and welcome any chance to go lighter.
That even includes lighter ammo — so long as the round remains as effective as what they’re shooting now — and to get there AAI Corp. is testing rounds without brass casings. One, which promises to be 35 percent lighter than the standard 5.56-mm bullet, has a polymer casing. The other, for all intents and purposes, does not have a casing — the round is embedded in a high-temperature ignition propellant that, when fired, is vaporized.
It was last December the company picked up a three-year, $5.8 million contract from the Army’s Joint Service Small Arms Program Office to continue work on its light-weight weapon and ammo. Total funding under the contract could reach $28 million, according to the company.
The contact calls for AAI to continue work on its 5.56-mm machine gun and two types of light-weight ammo — the cased and caseless rounds the company had on display this week at Modern Day Marine at Quantico.
The goal of the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program is to reduce the weight and size of the small arms and ammo used by Marines and Soldiers.
“We’ve got a polymer-cased ammunition,” said David A. Phillips, vice president for Business Development and Advanced Systems at AAI. “It has a telescoped configuration and uses the same ball propellant as the standard 5.56-mm round.”
The company is working specifically on 5.56-caliber, he said, but has been asked by the Marine Corps and the Army to work everything scalable to be 5.56– and the 7.62-caliber used by NATO.
The 5.56 round on display constituted about a 35 percent weight reduction from the standard brass-cased round, he said. The caseless round is about 50 percent lighter than the standard round, he said.
According to another of the AAI officials taking part at Modern Day Marine, Marines who stop by and learn they might eventually be toting ammo that’s up to 50 percent lighter than what they use now have a typical response.
An alert DT reader spotted this pic of 3rd Btln. 10th Special Forces Group Soldiers training before their deployment at a range in Fort Carson, Colo.
Check out the rifle in this guy’s hand…Mk-16…
Also, the funny thing is that the rest of the pictures show SF operators weilding M4s in various modifications. Wonder what you have to do to be the guy that gets the SCAR?
An alert reader sent me a link to some footage of a DEA team in Afghanistan wearing some of the Gucciest high-speed gear I’ve ever seen in open sources.
But our friend noticed a shot with an operator firing some version of the SCAR. Now, I can’t tell if its the Mk-16 or Mk-17 (though I think it’s a 7.62mm 17) but it’s for sure a SCAR. The weird thing is that the uniform is different from the other DEA agents. They’re all wearing MultiCam and the SCAR shooter is wearing what looks to me like either the Marine Corps issued combat shirt in desert digital MARPAT, or the aftermarket BlackHawk! shirt that’s part of the HPFU. Or maybe the guy’s a special operator that’s attached to the DEA unit.
Anyway, check out the video yourself and do some IMINT for us.
My source declined to specify which units are receiving them now, but based on the math and timeline, it looks like Army Special Forces and the balance of SEALs are getting theirs soon (and Marines)…SEE PREVIOUS STORY
My source said there are two “units” yet to receive their SCARs, but that so far nine units have received about 500 Mk-16 (5.56mm) versions have been fielded, 350 Mk-17 (7.62mm) versions have been fielded and 165 Mk-13s (the 40mm grenade launcher).
Fielding began in April and will end by the end of November, my source says. He also said that a bunch of accessory barrels, grips and suppressors have been included in the fielding as well.
About 1,400 SCARs of various calibers are set to be fielded to special operators through this year.
Recent Comments
Good observations about drones. The real potential of laser...
Will
The most simple thing is have 2 basic issued uniforms....
Big Daddy
Valid observation, Charles. This is all so new that it's hard...
Will
Part III : But, as I said in a previous comment, I...
freefallingbomb
Part II : The Bushmaster's machine-cannon...
freefallingbomb
Part I : Why doesn't this article, or even...
freefallingbomb
I guess camouflaging exposed skin has gone out of...
Eric daniel
The US Military should hold annual fashion shows. The Army...
Zandor
I'd also like to point out, that soldier systems has been...
a1189
Has to do with traverse speed. If the target is close then the...
Charles