Just when NATO was starting to seem more relevant again......
Just when NATO was starting to seem more relevant again......
You are WAY overestimating both the relevance of small arms choices in a near peer conflict and the relevance of most NATO militaries.Originally Posted by Caballoflaco
The NATO Cold War glory days are LONG over.. Most neo militaries are undermanned underfunded and lucky if 50% of their equipment could make it out the gate in the event of a war. If they get serious again they might be relevant five or 10 years from now.
Regarding the optic, I went back to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7NLMU1JZkY
They don't actually tell me what the optic weighs, and I couldn't find it anywhere else. But they do say it weighs "less" than the equivalent-capability solution they have on the table.
To me, that solution looks like:
* Nightforce 1-8x ATACR: 21 oz
* Badger ord Condition One modular mount: 5 oz
* "Diving board" for laser rangefinder: 2 oz
* Wilcox Raptar S: 10.8 oz
Which gives a rough weight ceiling of 39.1 oz for the XM157 optic.
This article: https://www.gunsandammo.com/editoria...ontract/457100 gives the US Army barrel length requirement of 6,000 rounds, and SIG claiming 12,000 rounds for their barrels.
Some interesting tidbits in this article...TFB: US Army Discusses NGSW...
I found this surprising...
When asked which unit specifically would be issued the weapons first, Brigadier General Burris said that this was a decision for Army senior leadership. The general also emphasised that the M4A1 and M249 will continue in service with non-close combat force units and specialisations for years to come. Interestingly, Burris suggested that issue would be done along the lines of military occupational specialty code (MOS) rather than on a unit basis, stating that a company supply sergeant in a close combat unit would still carry an M4A1 carbine. This raises logistical questions for the supply chain of close combat force units in the field.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
Remember this was the same plan with the M4 originally. The thought was that the M4 would be limited to support personnel and SOF. Think the M1 Carbine during WWII. It was soon decided that the M4 worked for everyone and reduced supply/parts issues.
Remember this is a small purchase in dollar terms ~$20M. It will be enough XM5/XM250 for a Company sized test element who will spend the next year testing them out. The Army did the same with the OICWS, the program to mate a 5.56 with a 40mm airbrush system. After a $25M purchase and a year with two platoons from 25th I.D., it was determined not to be the proper system.
Same thing could still happen here.
Yeah, but the M4 used the same ammunition, magazines, and TA50 as the M16s carried by the rest of the unit.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
I recall meeting an M4 for the first time at Fort Lewis circa 1998. It was the US Army new hotness then. My main takeaway was why is the damn stock so wobbly?
The US Army and Marine Corps fought WWII with three small arm cartridges in an infantry and most other maneuver units - .30-06, .30 Carbine and .45ACP. 1972 infantry was most likely standardized on 7.62mm NATO, 5.56x45mm and .45 ACP.
The 2025 US Army close combat unit will be carrying what? Perchance 6.8, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO and 9mm NATO plus a 12 gauge? Likely a few elements will still have orphaned .338 and even .300 Win.
https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/n..._v4.ashx?la=en
Thats true. I should have expanded on that point.
My other point is that this purchase doesn't mean that the DoD will transition to this system. That's why it's still designated "XM5/XM250". They're still considered experimental. They'll take this purchase issue them out to a test unit and then run them for a year or so. DoD will take the data from that test, plus all the cost/benefit analysis (i.e. cost of new TA50, training costs, etc.) and determine if it is in the best interest to continue.
Similar situation with the SCAR. USSOCOM bought a bunch as a test for replacement of the M4. After multiple unit-level tests including deployments, it was determined that the increased cost (retraining, new TA50) exceeded performance advantages so DoD determined not to move forward with testing outside of USSOCOM. Hell, even they walked away from the SCAR.
Do I believe that a version of the XM5/XM250 will be issued to some Soldiers/Marines/Air Force at some point, sure. Can I see the entire program getting killed, absolutely.
I'd say 50/50 right now. Maybe even 60/40 against. I think the cost and Soldier complaints (weight, recoil, ammo reduction) are going to sway the DoD against it.
Further thinking on logistics;
Needs that are easily justified and forecasted are the easiest to plan for and fulfill.
Ammo for a direct combat unit -regardless of how 'special' that ammo may be- is arguably the easiest requirement to justify and forecast, second only to food and water. Especially for something like an IBCT carrying these sorts of weapons in limited numbers, I suspect the logistics side of it will be a lot simpler than many folks fear at this point. Assuming things don't get tied up at stupid places in the bureaucracy of DLA/TACOM/etc, but again, it's a super easy justification and no intermediate commander or civilian in that bureaucracy wants to be holding the bag when some two or three star starts getting irritated and asking 'Why aren't you getting my infantry guys the fucking ammo they need?'
The logistics needs that really get scary/complicated are the unexpected but 'time:now' repair or support parts for complicated and expensive things like tanks, artillery, radar, etc that might be forward deployed way the F out in the boonies where getting said parts/logistics to them can be a really complicated mess. Given how many various high-tech and stupidly complicated systems we have fielded in combat zones, we've gotten pretty good at supporting things logistically. Not quite Amazon Prime levels of good at it, but still pretty good.
Where that will go off the proverbial rails is if a very wide scale and heated conflict pops off, that in turn threatens our logistics elements and support system in ways we haven't experienced over the past 20 years of asymmetrical McWTF. Then it's back to the same old beg/borrow/steal E-4 Mafia supply chain and fancy ammo would be a hot commodity. But again, getting that fancy ammo to the meat-eaters that need it would be a pretty high priority.
Reply With Quote