XM-7 NGSW rifle program apparently stalled?

[wolf76]

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.

The Unclassified SAAC Study Brief to NATO does not mention anything about shooting insurgents at long range.

I don't have experience with long-range shooting but I would assume the NGSW FCS would be more significant against a stationary target than a fleeting target at extended distance (since AFAIK, the FCS doesn't compensate for target lead) for the average infantry soldier. Please correct me if my assumption is wrong.

I have read past posts from lightfighter.net that estimating range was a problem for many soldiers due to training constraints. Rgrgordo from lightfighter forum wrote the following there: "Additionally, my personal experience as recent as my last rotation to AF this past August to November has shown that Troops in general are severally deficit in range estimation. What looks like 500 meters to them is no more than 175-200 meters. Therefore, they engage and don't hit (their way over the target). Further, I have personally seen Soldiers shooting at targets that they say are 200 meters away and are more like 600-700 meters away." https://www.lightfighter.net/topic/m...43236915163673

Do you think the FCS may be a hardware solution to that software problem mentioned by Rgrgordo?

[DpdG]

Do you think the FCS may be a hardware solution to that software problem mentioned by Rgrgordo?

Again, I’m unqualified to comment in the organizational sense.

From a marksmanship perspective, 5.56 with current aiming systems is essentially a “hold center mass and squeeze” solution inside 3-400m (depending on zero). The new FCS certainly does alleviate any degree of range estimation or mental ballistic calculation, so it should solve that problem regardless of if it’s training or hardware.

Regarding movers- you’re right nothing indicates the FCS doing that calculation. Even without it, it may take a while for adversaries to adapt tactics to using hard cover and/or fleeting exposure for all movements inside the complete NGSW’s increased effective range. Effective fire by average infantrymen on static targets to 800m, if achievable, is pretty significant.

Again, I think money is a good indicator of priorities and since the optics likely cost more than the rifles, that’s the order of priority I suspect. I believe the rifles’ increased range capabilities are selected to match the optics, and the armor thing is a means of selling the investment. I highly doubt (but have no evidence) that the new standard projectile is or ever was likely to defeat true Level IV armor. 30-06 AP is a high bar to cross.

EDIT- typos from phone

[wolf76]

I highly doubt (but have no evidence) that the new standard projectile is or ever was likely to defeat true Level IV armor. 30-06 AP is a high bar to cross.

This Americanrifleman.org article claims that the 6.8mm can defeat NIJ Lv3 body armor using non-armor piercing projectiles (which I assume would mean the EPR style GP projectile) but I do not know who the article's source is: https://www.americanrifleman.org/con...eapons-program

From what I have read in the past regarding NGSW, the Army required both GP and SP projectiles for 6.8x51mm. I am not involved in the NGSW program but it could very well be possible that the SP projectile is an advanced tungsten carbide core projectile designed to defeat a peer-body armor threat.

EDIT: Typo

[DpdG]

From the American Rifleman article (and I share your concern for their sources):

These include the effective range of the 5.56 NATO cartridge, the ability of M16-derived systems to deliver suppressive fire, the need for modularity to accommodate modern accessories and the weight that small arms systems add to an already-burdened soldier. The search for solutions to these problems are defined by a defense industry buzzword and a catchphrase: “overmatch” and “near-peer adversaries.” Overmatch is the ability to outperform the range, accuracy and lethality of the weapons used by the enemy of an advanced military with capabilities similar to those of the United States, such as Russia and China, and such militaries are seen as near-peer adversaries.

...While the 5.56 NATO has a similar effective range to the Russian 5.45x39 mm and Chinese 5.8x42 mm cartridges (approximately 500 meters), that range would have to be extended for “overmatch.” Additionally, many arms that U.S. soldiers have often found themselves facing use the 7.62x54 mm R cartridge, as fired by PSL and SVD rifles and the PK series of medium machine guns, which have an effective range of approximately 800 meters.

and

In 2017, retired Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales stated the problem succinctly to the Senate Armed Services Committee: “Survival [on the modern battlefield] depends on the ability to deliver more killing power at longer ranges and with greater precision than the enemy.”

These quotes, admittedly cherry picked, are what lead me to my conclusions on range extension being the prime, but not sole, motivator for the program as a whole. Again, I am including the optics system when I say "program as a whole.”

EDIT- Corrected quote from AR article. Copy/paste from phone is difficult

[HCM]

From the American Rifleman article (and I share your concern for their sources):
and


These quotes, admittedly cherry picked, are what lead me to my conclusions on range extension being the prime, but not sole, motivator for the program as a whole. Again, I am including the optics system when I say "program as a whole."

Anything from Bob Scales is suspect at best. Doubly so if it involves small arms.

[DpdG]

This Americanrifleman.org article claims that the 6.8mm can defeat NIJ Lv3 body armor using non-armor piercing projectiles (which I assume would mean the EPR style GP projectile)

If “near-peer body armor” is being defined as NIJ Level III, then I’m quite confident a 6.8mm built along the lines of M855A1/M80A1 will defeat body armor. M855A1 in its current guise will defeat many/most current NIJ Level III offerings. There are a select few that are rated to stop A1 and they are frequently referred to as III+ or III++, even though there is no such NIJ rating.

[TGS]

I highly doubt (but have no evidence) that the new standard projectile is or ever was likely to defeat true Level IV armor. 30-06 AP is a high bar to cross.

EDIT- typos from phone

From what I have read in the past regarding NGSW, the Army required both GP and SP projectiles for 6.8x51mm. I am not involved in the NGSW program but it could very well be possible that the SP projectile is an advanced tungsten carbide core projectile designed to defeat a peer-body armor threat.

EDIT: Typo

If “near-peer body armor” is being defined as NIJ Level III, then I’m quite confident a 6.8mm built along the lines of M855A1/M80A1 will defeat body armor. M855A1 in its current guise will defeat many/most current NIJ Level III offerings. There are a select few that are rated to stop A1 and they are frequently referred to as III+ or III++, even though there is no such NIJ rating.

Unless the 6.8 AP round uses a novel technology with performance currently not released to the public, I think the US Army lost the armor pen goal before they even started.

The current standard Russian 6b45 from the Ratnik upgrade program will not stop a tungsten AP round...but you don't need a tungsten 6.8 to defeat it to begin with, either. Given that, it's reasonable to assume that 6b45 (roughly level 3) is not a target of the NGSW program especially given that it will likely be replaced in 2025 by the Sotnik program before the NGSW is even fully fielded.

However, the heavier Granit plates already in use and issued to some Russian SOF does stop M993 from 4.5m, which makes me extremely doubtful that the 6.8 AP round will be able to penetrate it at ranges of hundreds of meters, even if it were able to pen it at CQB distance.

Lacking information on a potential novel technology, the program falls flat on its face for its stated goals. Increasing range can actually make sense, though, even if I personally feel it's a misguided goal. After all, you don't need to penetrate their armor at 600m to reduce an infantry squad. Shooting them in the dick works pretty well, too. I get that sounds infantile, and that internet terminal ballistics discussions are usually focused on close range self defense scenarios where immediate incapacitation is necessary, but hitting a dude in the pelvis with a rifle at 600-800 meters is overwhelmingly going to influence the fight in your favor.

Range estimation is extremely hard to do well. It was one of the biggest contributing factors to students flunking out on the range portions of the 10-week USMC scout sniper course, and that's with motivated dudes who are 1) already at the top of their game, 2) were trained in house by the STA platoons prior to arriving at the school house, and 3) had intensive training and practice on the skill within the course.

So, removing that variable by way of technology makes sense, as it's realistically not something we can teach the average grunt to do well. However, that still leaves the actual technical shooting skills/fundamentals in question, and on that note...well...given where the US Army currently is on that skillset, that's akin to asking Pol Pot to establish a human rights commission and expecting it to actually work. I don't think the US Army has that capacity, either technically or culturally.

Thus, lacking any novel technology that isn't public, I give you option c: the US Army doesn't know what the fuck it's doing.

[DpdG]

So, removing that variable by way of technology makes sense, as it's realistically not something we can teach the average grunt to do well. However, that still leaves the actual technical shooting skills/fundamentals in question, and on that note...well...given where the US Army currently is on that skillset, that's akin to asking Pol Pot to establish a human rights commission and expecting it to actually work. I don't think the US Army has that capacity, either technically or culturally.

Thus, lacking any novel technology that isn't public, I give you option c: the US Army doesn't know what the fuck it's doing.

Is the state of Army marksmanship instruction that poor? I would have assumed the current standard would be effective point target hits to about 400m using a M68 equipped M4. With 8x magnification and the FCU doing a live overlay aiming solution, it seems like the remaining fundamentals shouldn’t be insurmountable.

[Tokarev]

Winchester have been awarded several new contracts to produce ammunition for the the XM7 and XM250.


https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...y-the-us-army/

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[TGS]

Is the state of Army marksmanship instruction that poor? I would have assumed the current standard would be effective point target hits to about 400m using a M68 equipped M4. With 8x magnification and the FCU doing a live overlay aiming solution, it seems like the remaining fundamentals shouldn’t be insurmountable.

Not insurmountable, and the army firearms training got a bit of an upgrade over the last few years compared to mid-GWOT where army troops had pretty lackluster weapons training. However, they don't even shoot to 400m, only 300m, and they only even have to hit 23 of 40 targets to qualify.

Going from hitting half of your assigned targets out to 300 (the vast majority of them significantly closer than that), to 600-800, is quite a jump. I'd be comfortable with the statement that the average army soldier is not properly trained in the fundamentals for 600-800m point target capability. Nor do they need to be, since that's why we have machine guns and things that go up and come down and go boom.

Again, not insurmountable, but that's going to require a pretty dramatic institutional shift on training and culture with marksmanship.

*Standing by in flamesuit for all the indignant parents declaring how their little little trooper is the best God damned body stacker since Audie Murphy, and they're going to call "their" command sergeant major about me*