Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: XM-7 NGSW rifle program apparently stalled?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Asuncion, Paraguay

    XM-7 NGSW rifle program apparently stalled?

    The not-really Next Generation Weapons Program

    On all key technical measures, the Next Generation Squad Weapons program is imploding before Army’s very eyes. The program is on mechanical life support, with its progenitors at the Joint Chiefs obstinately now ramming the program through despite spectacularly failing multiple civilian-sector peer reviews almost immediately upon commercial release.

    https://www.armytimes.com/opinion/co...apons-program/

    Anybody knows anything about this?

  2. #2
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    PNW
    No details to add, other than to say I've been skeptical of this rifle program from the start. It won't surprise in the least if all or most of the critiques in the article about the excess weight, reliability issues, excess recoil, and mediocre terminal ballistics, turn out to be correct.

  3. #3
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    I think the whole program is kind of stupid and that 6.8x51 should only serve as a replacement for MMGs and DMRs...but...

    ...that was a shit article, from a shit publication, written by a guy who appears to have zero bonafides or relevant accomplishments other than being another PhD with an inflated sense of worth. His commentary about it failing "civilian testing" appears to refer to YouTube videos, and he offers nothing other than his opinion as to how/why the program is collapsing.

    Pretty much on par for the Army Times, Marine Corps Times, etc.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  4. #4
    Site Supporter JohnO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    CT (behind Enemy lines)
    Initial reports of the Army & Marines adopting the new weapon system included Lake City constructing a new building to manufacture the specialized ammunition. Perhaps that will still go ahead if the Machine Gun that utilizes the same ammunition stays on track.

    I thought the undertaking would be a logistical nightmare and would last only till the first budget review.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Canada
    It seems that the article's author is basing a lot of his information and statements regarding NGSW on Youtube videos and internet hearsay. For example, the author references the Youtube channel InRange TV, but the problem is that there is no consistency to InRange TV's 'mud tests' and they are simply of entertainment value. For a mud test to be valid, it needs to be done in accordance with a scientific test protocol, such as the NATO D/14 Handbook or TOP-3-2-045. As well, I have never seen the US Army officially claim that the 6.8x51mm would defeat peer-body armour using non-tungsten carbide rounds.
    Last edited by wolf76; 03-08-2023 at 07:54 PM.

  6. #6
    That article is absolute dog water. The "civilian trials" he refers to are literal YouTube quick takes using one specific rifle (as in the same serial number) from Sig's 50 unit semi-only release that the SOT shop modified into full auto and I was present when the "mud test" was done. Seriously, every YT video I've seen has been "weapon provided by Illumined Arms." All the "tests" have been using either the all brass FMJ .277 Fury ammo, or the civvy hybrid-cased FMJ. While the civvy hybrid is more energetic than the brass, it is still using a traditional FMJ style projectile, not the Army-spec light armor penetrator that reportedly resembles 855A1/M80A1. I'm not saying the Army-spec ammo is or isn't capable of defeating Level III or higher armor- only that there have been no civvy trials of the Army ammo.

    Finally, the only "civilian trial" I've seen of the optics package was Garand Thumb under Vortex's direct supervision and was not on a XM-5/7 rifle, and his evaluation of the optics package was effusive. He's also not really known for being a bastion of scientific rigor, so huge grain of salt.

    Big disclaimer for what follows- I'm not/never was military and cannot evaluate whether the program in whole or in part is actually a good idea by/for the Army.

    I suspect the program was built around a belief the weapon system will enable a doctrinal change away from fire/maneuver at close distance as a baseline infantry tactic. I think the planners believe the complete weapon system will make obsolete the existing statistics (and resulting tactics) about combat occurring at close distance with lots of ammo expended per neutralized hostile combatant. Most statistics I've seen use Vietnam as a data sample, and even if one were to use GWOT, the optics/aiming systems in use were/are drastically less capable than the NGSW thing is claimed to be. I think they were planning on the average infantryman being effective in the ranges currently occupied by DMRs.

    If doctrinal change to routine long distance combat by average infantry elements is the plan, I personally believe the optic package is the more important (and foundational) game changer versus the rifle. The optic system is advertised as near-instantaneously taking care of basically all the thinking/math part of mid-range shooting, so the shooter just has to execute a clean trigger press. The rifle seems to be designed to leverage the long distance capability of the optics and in that context the weight/ammo capacity compromises make more sense. There are some things from the solicitation that make me think the planners were cognizant of the need to retain some modicum of CQB capability, such as the requirement for suppressors and the relatively short OAL specified.
    Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.

  7. #7
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf76 View Post
    As well, I have never seen the US Army officially claim that the 6.8x51mm would defeat peer-body armour using non-tungsten carbide rounds.
    This is the one that gets me the most about the armor testing done by people on YouTube.

    I don't know whether people are trying to be edgelords, or if they're just fucking dumb. It's similar to the phenomena we have with people saying, "oh look F35 sux it gets spotted on civi airport raydur lulz", and they don't realize because that's on purpose for safety reasons and accomplished through the use of Luneburg lenses to make them light up like a Christmas tree on radar.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  8. #8
    Abducted by Aliens Borderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Camano Island WA.
    What happened to the F-22? The best damned stealth fighter that money could buy got canceled. Now the military wants AI drones, given the reality, that is the latest tech on the battle field.

    I think the military is rapidly moving past something like NGSW. Won't matter if you get targeted by a drone and artillery or a cruise missile gets the coordinates.

    I know you wouldn't use a cruise missile on 1 or even 5 enemy combatants, but if a motor team or 155mm knows their coordinates and the coordinates of the enemy it's pretty easy to hit their position. I think we've seen video of that.
    Last edited by Borderland; 03-08-2023 at 10:16 PM.
    In the P-F basket of deplorables.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by DpdG View Post
    Big disclaimer for what follows- I'm not/never was military and cannot evaluate whether the program in whole or in part is actually a good idea by/for the Army.

    I suspect the program was built around a belief the weapon system will enable a doctrinal change away from fire/maneuver at close distance as a baseline infantry tactic. I think the planners believe the complete weapon system will make obsolete the existing statistics (and resulting tactics) about combat occurring at close distance with lots of ammo expended per neutralized hostile combatant. Most statistics I've seen use Vietnam as a data sample, and even if one were to use GWOT, the optics/aiming systems in use were/are drastically less capable than the NGSW thing is claimed to be. I think they were planning on the average infantryman being effective in the ranges currently occupied by DMRs.

    If doctrinal change to routine long distance combat by average infantry elements is the plan, I personally believe the optic package is the more important (and foundational) game changer versus the rifle. The optic system is advertised as near-instantaneously taking care of basically all the thinking/math part of mid-range shooting, so the shooter just has to execute a clean trigger press. The rifle seems to be designed to leverage the long distance capability of the optics and in that context the weight/ammo capacity compromises make more sense. There are some things from the solicitation that make me think the planners were cognizant of the need to retain some modicum of CQB capability, such as the requirement for suppressors and the relatively short OAL specified.
    AFAIK, the main rationale behind the NGSW was to have a battle rifle that could defeat peer-body armor using advanced AP ammunition. Not saying that there was no consideration for longer-range engagements but all the reliable sources and information concerning NGSW have emphasized armor penetration as the motive.

    I'm not in the military so I can't comment on whether NGSW is the right choice for the US military. The available official information shows that NGSW has a weight penalty compared to 5.56mm: https://www.army.mil/article/256697/...dier_lethality.

    However, I do think that we need to put NGSW within the context of the US Army's return to a division-based force for LSCOs against future peer and near-peer adversaries, how/whether the division's sustainment operations and capabilities differs from that of a Brigade Combat Team-based force as well as what possible measures the Army may introduce to offset the weight penalty of NGSW and whether the Army has conducted a DOTMLPF assessment regarding the trade-offs of 6.8x51mm vs 5.56mm for LSCOs.
    Last edited by wolf76; 03-08-2023 at 11:49 PM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf76 View Post
    AFAIK, the main rationale behind the NGSW was to have a battle rifle that could defeat peer-body armor using advanced AP ammunition. Not saying that there was no consideration for longer-range engagements but all the reliable sources and information concerning NGSW have emphasized armor penetration as the motive.
    I‘m not sure I’d agree with this portion. I think the body armor thing is the excuse being offered up to take advantage of the current geopolitical situation. “We want to shoot people far away” is much less likely to garner funding than “we need to be prepared to counter Sino-Russian adversaries in an emerging tri-polar world.”

    Early in the NGSW program, a great deal of PR was put into “overmatch” in the context of AFG and opposition forces using PKMs and DsKA to rain fire on US from distances that precluded effective return fire with 5.56 weapons and legacy aiming systems. Also- the XM-5/7 is supposed to be fielded exclusively with its partnered optics package, which is an advanced 1-8 lvpo with built in ballistics computer/range finder/atmospheric/IR designator unit that automatically computes and overlays a firing solution. If that doesn’t scream “we want distance capability” I don’t know what does.

    EXIT- From what’s been published, I believe the cost per unit will be higher for the optics unit than the combined rifle/suppressor. If those costs are accurate, that would also indicate distance capability is the higher priority than defeating body armor.
    Last edited by DpdG; 03-09-2023 at 12:17 AM.
    Anything I post is my opinion alone as a private citizen.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •