XM-7 NGSW rifle program apparently stalled?

[RevolverRob]

Remember the goal of systems acquisition folks and the goal of systems sellers is the same...To stay in business.

I'm not taking a shot at anyone in acquisitions in .MIL for continually evaluating and looking at equipment. But at the end of the day, we've fought four, full fledged wars, and dozens of other actions with 5.56 poodle shooters, 7.62 LMGs, and the .50 HMGs (which have seen even more action).

There should not be, in 2023, a reason to believe that small arms win wars or that they are even all that relevant. War fighters are relevant, guided and unguided explosives are relevant, tactics are relevant, politics are relevant - those all win wars not guns. It's not 1864 with a Henry rifle against a muzzle loading Springfield. We have dudes in Myanmar building 9mm SMGs out of 3D printer filament and using those to effectively wage war against a numerically superior force armed with better weapons and support.

So, to me we really shouldn't be worrying about replacing rifles, machine guns, and especially handguns - Unless we can make a compelling argument in terms of logistics. Otherwise we're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic in the sense that what we're doing is largely irrelevant to the big picture.

___

I'd really rather we focus on ways of decreasing the costs of sensor arrays and ordnance overall. Such that we can have larger stockpiles at lower prices.

After watching Russia, an ostensible "near peer", get its ass kicked by a bunch of Ukrainian conscripts armed with Stingers and AT4s - I think it's pretty clear that the caliber of LMGs and rifles isn't really that important. Instead, a steady supply of portable ordnance and explosive munitions is much more relevant.

[JSGlock34]

I remain skeptical of the XM-7 replacing the M4. The fact that rifles were outranged in Afghanistan by Taliban machineguns seems like an issue addressed by machineguns, mortars, artillery, and close air support.

However, I think the XM250 is intriguing, and while my own experiences with the M249 SAW were positive (and dated), the SAW is not one of the more popular small arms in the inventory. The idea of 'upgunning' the SAW has some merit, and the XM250 seems to do so without much of a weight penalty (unlike the XM7).

The SIG .338 MG also shows a lot of promise.

That said, I think fielding the ENVG-B and accompanying FWS and preserving our night fighting advantage over peer adversaries is a higher priority than changing ammunition. The guidance system is more important than the projectile these days. Whether the wirelessly transmitted 'augmented reality' sighting system introduces new problems is another matter, but it does address the vulnerability of using active aiming systems against enemies with NVGs.

I'm still not quite sure how all of this integrates with the XM-157 Vortex sight. Seems like the load is getting significantly heavier for the individual rifleman.

[TGS]

Seems like the load is getting significantly heavier for the individual rifleman.

Even for the USMC, which hasn't adopted the NGSW. The current spec M27 is damn near 15lbs loaded. That's pretty nuts.

That's almost the weight of the original Minimi and M1918 BAR, in case anyone wanted some context.

[Wake27]

Luckily we’re not at a point where all sources are saying that the average Americans in todays ideal recruitment window are weaker than ever. Oh wait.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Bergeron]

I like seeing MG development, be it the Knight’s guns, the Sig guns, or other new stuff out there. While I remain unimpressed with 6.8x51, a belt-gun lighter than M249 with 6.8 ballistics is interesting.

I also think that 8.6/.338 belt-feds have a great role to play, even if I don’t personally think it replaces M2.

For DMR rifle stuff, I just don’t see what 6.8 provides that isn’t provided better in 6.5 or even 6mm, assuming similar BC and bullet design.

I am interested to see if M27-5.56mm IAR capabilities can be provided at equivalent reliability and capability at lower weight.

[Trigger]

So I have a question to ask all of you smarter than me types. Is the Army's logistic system sophisticated enough to support more than one rifle and more than one caliber? Serious question. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Army could train for marksmanship in general. Then when they go into a conflict dominated by open spaces and long shots, they issue a weapon and ammunition optimized for that. When they go into a conflict dominated by urban warfare, they issue a weapon and ammunition optimized for that. You get the picture.

I understand SOF can do that now. My question is can big Army and big Marine Corps support system of training and logistics be flexible enough and sophisticated enough to support more than one rifle and caliber? This might mean something along the lines of a lightweight Ruger SFAR in 6.5 or 6.8 for longer distances, and an AR15 with 556 or 300 BLK for more urban situations.

Both 100 years ago and 50 years ago; it was one rifle one caliber. All training, all scenarios. Today might be different. Certainly when I go hunting I don’t choose one rifle for all animals: Elk, Bear, deer, coyotes, prairie dogs. Certainly SOF can tailor their gear and load out to their specific mission. Traditionalists would say no, the logistic challenges and cost for big Army/Marines would outweigh the benefits. But on the other hand, the Marines have experimented with Agile logistics and additive manufacturing, deploying the capability to create spare parts in the field when the logistics tail is too long to support them efficiently.

If we can do this, the simple answer becomes buy both systems. Buy a long range caliber for one scenario, buy a short range caliber for another. Create the commonalities in weapons shape, operation, magazines, safeties, malfunction clearance, such that there are minimal training scars when moving from one system to another. Ruger SFAR in 6.5/6.8 and AR-15 in 556/300BLK.

We had an expression when I was working budgets, requirements, planning and programming on the Staff, called POM dust. Compared to the cost of a new major weapon system like an airplane or a ship, the cost of a rifle system is insignificant: dust. If we can control the logistics cost of having two or three complementary rifles and calibers, then the logistics does not hold us back. Instead of having one rifle to rule them all, we have two or three tailored for each scenario. If the logistics is flexible and agile, then two or three rifles and calibers would actually be cheaper in the long run than one rifle they can do it all.

The question is, can we do it?

[Wake27]

So I have a question to ask all of you smarter than me types. Is the Army's logistic system sophisticated enough to support more than one rifle and more than one caliber? Serious question. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Army could train for marksmanship in general. Then when they go into a conflict dominated by open spaces and long shots, they issue a weapon and ammunition optimized for that. When they go into a conflict dominated by urban warfare, they issue a weapon and ammunition optimized for that. You get the picture.

I understand SOF can do that now. My question is can big Army and big Marine Corps support system of training and logistics be flexible enough and sophisticated enough to support more than one rifle and caliber? This might mean something along the lines of a lightweight Ruger SFAR in 6.5 or 6.8 for longer distances, and an AR15 with 556 or 300 BLK for more urban situations.

Both 100 years ago and 50 years ago; it was one rifle one caliber. All training, all scenarios. Today might be different. Certainly when I go hunting I don’t choose one rifle for all animals: Elk, Bear, deer, coyotes, prairie dogs. Certainly SOF can tailor their gear and load out to their specific mission. Traditionalists would say no, the logistic challenges and cost for big Army/Marines would outweigh the benefits. But on the other hand, the Marines have experimented with Agile logistics and additive manufacturing, deploying the capability to create spare parts in the field when the logistics tail is too long to support them efficiently.

If we can do this, the simple answer becomes buy both systems. Buy a long range caliber for one scenario, buy a short range caliber for another. Create the commonalities in weapons shape, operation, magazines, safeties, malfunction clearance, such that there are minimal training scars when moving from one system to another. Ruger SFAR in 6.5/6.8 and AR-15 in 556/300BLK.

We had an expression when I was working budgets, requirements, planning and programming on the Staff, called POM dust. Compared to the cost of a new major weapon system like an airplane or a ship, the cost of a rifle system is insignificant: dust. If we can control the logistics cost of having two or three complementary rifles and calibers, then the logistics does not hold us back. Instead of having one rifle to rule them all, we have two or three tailored for each scenario. If the logistics is flexible and agile, then two or three rifles and calibers would actually be cheaper in the long run than one rifle they can do it all.

The question is, can we do it?

Not with today’s Army, no.

Logistics is only part of the problem. Logistics units throughout the BCT are struggling with authorized vs on hand numbers of personnel and the reality of those authorizations not being enough in the first place. The small arms repairers that have to maintain the guns probably wouldn’t be the issue, but whatever the process would be to rotate the weapons and associated ammo in and out, depending on the frequency and level at which it’s done, would be at least part of it.

The scenario is different if we’re talking a BN that could need to swap out guns within 24hours vs a BDE.

Another part of that problem is the simple storage of such a high number of sensitive items. When everyone has one gun, not that big of a deal. But if everyone suddenly has two, that’s a ton of new items that have to be stored and transported, and it all has to be done securely. Then it also has to be constantly re-inventoried and accounted. All. The. Time.

Those are the immediate, major problems off the top of my head. The more we explore the idea, I’m willing to bet the more that will arise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Yute]

FWIW NGSW continues to be on the latest Army budget...

[HCM]

So I have a question to ask all of you smarter than me types. Is the Army's logistic system sophisticated enough to support more than one rifle and more than one caliber? Serious question. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Army could train for marksmanship in general. Then when they go into a conflict dominated by open spaces and long shots, they issue a weapon and ammunition optimized for that. When they go into a conflict dominated by urban warfare, they issue a weapon and ammunition optimized for that. You get the picture.

I understand SOF can do that now. My question is can big Army and big Marine Corps support system of training and logistics be flexible enough and sophisticated enough to support more than one rifle and caliber? This might mean something along the lines of a lightweight Ruger SFAR in 6.5 or 6.8 for longer distances, and an AR15 with 556 or 300 BLK for more urban situations.

Both 100 years ago and 50 years ago; it was one rifle one caliber. All training, all scenarios. Today might be different. Certainly when I go hunting I don’t choose one rifle for all animals: Elk, Bear, deer, coyotes, prairie dogs. Certainly SOF can tailor their gear and load out to their specific mission. Traditionalists would say no, the logistic challenges and cost for big Army/Marines would outweigh the benefits. But on the other hand, the Marines have experimented with Agile logistics and additive manufacturing, deploying the capability to create spare parts in the field when the logistics tail is too long to support them efficiently.

If we can do this, the simple answer becomes buy both systems. Buy a long range caliber for one scenario, buy a short range caliber for another. Create the commonalities in weapons shape, operation, magazines, safeties, malfunction clearance, such that there are minimal training scars when moving from one system to another. Ruger SFAR in 6.5/6.8 and AR-15 in 556/300BLK.

We had an expression when I was working budgets, requirements, planning and programming on the Staff, called POM dust. Compared to the cost of a new major weapon system like an airplane or a ship, the cost of a rifle system is insignificant: dust. If we can control the logistics cost of having two or three complementary rifles and calibers, then the logistics does not hold us back. Instead of having one rifle to rule them all, we have two or three tailored for each scenario. If the logistics is flexible and agile, then two or three rifles and calibers would actually be cheaper in the long run than one rifle they can do it all.

The question is, can we do it?

But 70 years ago it wasn’t really “one rifle.” It was one rifle, plus one carbine, two sub machine guns and an “automatic rifle.”

We went through WWII and Korea with three basic small arms (Rifle, Carbine, SMG), three (or more) types of mags, ammo etc.

[JSGlock34]

I think what we're discussing here is the "Arms Room Concept", the idea of tailoring the small arms load out to meet specific mission needs. It is one of the proposals in the paper I referenced earlier, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer. Though mentioned in the paper, this model descends from Special Operations Forces, which have far more flexibility, but are also much smaller than the conventional military. Note that he Marines are currently experimenting with an "Arms Room Concept" for their Infantry Battalions, but the USMC interpretation is more about pushing heavier systems that are currently found in Weapons Companies down to the Rifle Companies, and is not about equipping the individual rifleman.

Any weapon system designed to perform in various environments will invariably make compromises in order to perform all requirements. The modular nature of the M4/M16 series of weapons lends itself to the arms room concept. Under the arms room concept, each soldier would have multiple weapons and optics combinations available. Commanders would have the flexibility to adjust the capabilities of the infantry squad for the anticipated environment while maintaining commonality of the manual of arms.

There are challenges here beyond expense for the large conventional force. From a training and readiness standpoint, it means splitting training across multiple weapon systems, and then keeping multiple weapons per solider zeroed for both day/night use. I think this concept lends itself better to raiding units.