XM-7 NGSW rifle program apparently stalled?

[Caballoflaco]

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..

I think that timelline is a bit optimistic considering the small amount of Russian soldiers who were issued full ratnik kit befre when they invaded Ukraine and that it’s possible they’ll still be fighting there in 2025.

But, as you mentioned, I think one of the biggest takeaways of the current war is that good sensors and weapons of 60mm and above that go up, come down and explode are far more important in a large scale near peer conflict than small arms.

[TGS]

I think that timelline is a bit optimistic considering the small amount of Russian soldiers who were issued full ratnik kit befre when they invaded Ukraine and that it’s possible they’ll still be fighting there in 2025.

But, as you mentioned, I think one of the biggest takeaways of the current war is that good sensors and weapons of 60mm and above that go up, come down and explode are far more important in a large scale near peer conflict than small arms.

I imagine that like the rest of Russian procurement, it will be a rolling adoption. I.e. Ratnik stops production but isn't actively withdrawn, rather, units just get Sotnik as it's produced and we'll still see Ratnik for up to a decade.

Not that there will be many Russian troops to outfit by that point, based on how things are going.

[TiroFijo]

Not that there will be many Russian troops to outfit by that point, based on how things are going.

What about the comments (nothing new, really) about planning to use tungsten core bullets in large quantities against near peer adversaries, but currently tungsten overwhelmingly comes from China?

Normal Vortex scopes are made, at least partially, in China. Is this now optic XM157 different, or it also has parts made in China?

[Borderland]

I think that timelline is a bit optimistic considering the small amount of Russian soldiers who were issued full ratnik kit befre when they invaded Ukraine and that it’s possible they’ll still be fighting there in 2025.

But, as you mentioned, I think one of the biggest takeaways of the current war is that good sensors and weapons of 60mm and above that go up, come down and explode are far more important in a large scale near peer conflict than small arms.

Beware the drone.

[WobblyPossum]

What about the comments (nothing new, really) about planning to use tungsten core bullets in large quantities against near peer adversaries, but currently tungsten overwhelmingly comes from China?

Normal Vortex scopes are made, at least partially, in China. Is this now optic XM157 different, or it also has parts made in China?

Generally, part of large US government contract requirements is that the item is produced within the United States so as to alleviate exactly that concern. That’s why foreign companies who win contracts set up US production facilities.

[LockedBreech]

I think that timelline is a bit optimistic considering the small amount of Russian soldiers who were issued full ratnik kit befre when they invaded Ukraine and that it’s possible they’ll still be fighting there in 2025.

But, as you mentioned, I think one of the biggest takeaways of the current war is that good sensors and weapons of 60mm and above that go up, come down and explode are far more important in a large scale near peer conflict than small arms.

That really has been the takeaway, I think, to a shocking extent. We learn this in every war and somehow it's always surprising. WW2 taught us dreadnoughts were old thinking, Desert Storm taught us numbers on the ground mean nothing without air, sensors, and range, and the Russo-Ukrainian war is teaching that logistics, surveillance, and heavy precision guns are the difference makers. And that artillery is still shockingly destructive even in the face of modern tech. Whether the soldiers on the ground are using AK-47s, AK5s, or M4s seems almost an afterthought. I've also seen at least three engagements with sidearms, suggesting that the notion of pistols not mattering that much is also not as correct as we might have thought.

The human toll is heartbreaking but the lessons will change the next 50 years in huge ways.

[Borderland]

OT, but this system looks interesting.

https://militaryleak.com/2023/01/05/...cked-vehicles/

Combined with aerial sensors (drones) this highly mobile mortar platform would be ideal for UKR against RU ground forces.

[HCM]

What about the comments (nothing new, really) about planning to use tungsten core bullets in large quantities against near peer adversaries, but currently tungsten overwhelmingly comes from China?

Normal Vortex scopes are made, at least partially, in China. Is this now optic XM157 different, or it also has parts made in China?

Nobody has enough tungsten Tungsten or enough money for constant replacement of the tooling it will prematurely wear out.

Some Vortex scopes are made in China, some in the Philippines, some in the US with

[JSGlock34]

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.”

The original source I have most seen referenced that made the overmatch argument and recommended adopting a 6.8mm rifle to extend effective range is a 2010 CGSC/SAMS paper by then Major Thomas P. Ernhart titled Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer. Defeating body armor was not discussed in this paper as a reason to adopt 6.8mm.

[Hambo]

I maintain that getting better small arms to troops is at best a secondary consideration of these projects.

Ukrainians had to shoot Russians because they didn't start the war like we would have: with the USAF, Apaches, and HIMARS.