US Congress' report on M4,a fading rifle?MY licensed to make
-
One of the modules developed for the F2000 system is a proprietary lightweight 40 mm under-slung GL1 grenade launcher (empty weight – 1 kg) that uses standard low-velocity 40x46mm grenades. The launcher is a single-shot breech-loaded pump-action weapon with a barrel that slides forward for loading and unloading (like the M203 grenade launcher), locked by axial rotation of the barrel.
The weapon’s trigger was installed directly under the F2000's trigger so that it can be manipulated without removing the shooting hand from the rifle’s pistol grip. The breech release button is found on the left side of the launcher body, like on the M203. The grenade launcher barrel length is 230 mm (9.1 in). The grenade launcher comes with a basic flip-up ladder sight, but it was intended to be used with a specially-designed optoelectronic fire control system designated FCS, developed in cooperation with the Finnish company Noptel. The aiming module is installed in place of the standard optical sight and becomes the weapon’s primary sight when mounted, but its main purpose is to accurately determine and indicate the range of a grenade target. The module is powered by a 9 V battery pack, installed in the stock, behind the magazine well. The power pack is also intended to power any other tactical accessories or systems that could be introduced.
The FCS integrates a low-power laser rangefinder (precise to within +/- 1 m), a day-time aiming channel with an electronically projected reticle, a measured range display reading and a diode elevation adjustment indicator. The fire control system calculates a firing solution manifested by the barrel’s angle of elevation using target range information from the laser rangefinder (the rangefinder is activated by pushing a button on the pistol grip, below the trigger), corrected manually by the shooter through a push-button interface (add/subtract buttons) on the FCS top cover to take account for head or tail winds that could affect the desired range. The F2000 FCS also contains software with the ballistic properties of up to six types of 40 mm grenades and can be reprogrammed to take advantage of future munition improvements.
So lionnoisy, you don't believe this?
Is this faked or mistaken info?
-
Also you haven't answered all these issues lionnoisy....
The SSW uses a 5.7mm PDW module as it's KE module, which is vastly inferior in range, accuracy, and stopping power to the full sized 5.56mm KE modules of most other ABM packages.
Additionally the SSW is not modular.
Additionally in the event of running out of 40mm ammo, or facing situtations 40mm is overkill or not needed, the SSW is unable to serve as a normal direct fire weapon on par with the rest of the weapons in the section or platoon.
Now you see why most companies working on the concept still want to stick with a full sized rifle? You think they are stupid or idiotic and didn't consider the PWD concept?
A bigger issue, what role exactly does the SSW fill? If put into a section supposedly to replace the SAR-21 GL, you lose the rifle ability the SAR-21 GL gives you in favour of a semiautomatic grenade launcher
If you put it in platoon level, one wonders why not just use a 3GL SAR-21? Which is still useful as a rifle or just switch to an ultra lightweight AGL altogether that can give you sustained 40mm ABM fire instead of just a limited magazine?
Is the SSW innovative?
Nope.
It's a fixed concept with serious compromises.
What is a innovative concept?
The IMI MPRS would be an example, a small, 600gram package that affords the capacity to use advanced munitions to any modern rifle or future modular weapons. In fact, anything that can accept a P-rail can accept the MPRS.
ADDITIONALLY, the MPRS is not just a ABM grenade sight, it is also an advanced sighting system that can be used with the normal, direct fire mode.
-
see what did a US military top brass say about M 4:
U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A9a7e9e78-976f-4318-989f-f1c1b0fb4fe3
Ares Homepage
In a briefing at Eurosatory show in Paris last week, the head of the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, wasn’t exactly bubbling with enthusiasm when discussing the Army’s Colt-manufactured M4 carbine, though he tempered his skepticism of the gun with enough praise to soften the edges.
“Right now the M4 carbine is a world class weapon,” he said, before adding, “my personal opinion is that we have to step up to a new carbine with a more lethal round.” It was an interesting admission on Brown’s part, since some have criticized the M4’s 5.56 round as not having enough stopping power, and its habit of jamming if not constantly cleaned. This comes in the context of a wider debate over the future of the M4 as the Army’s carbine of choice, especially since many people, including the Delta Force and SEAL’s, have been singing the praises of the Heckler & Koch 416 carbine. BG Brown surely knows this, which is probably why he followed up with this:
“I don’t think we need an unhealthy, discordant debate over the current carbine because I don’t think the current carbine is a long-lived solution anyway. However, the M4 carbine has been continuously improved. It has 68 substantial engineering design changes and about 380 total engineering design changes, so it’s become a modular system. It’s very accurate, it’s the most accurate of the carbines, it’s the lightest of the carbines, and it’s the shortest of the carbines. We’re very pleased with it, and we expect it to be the Army’s carbine of record, for a little while.”
.........
mnnnn
-
ggg
US Army commits to M4 rifle modernisation
US Army Secretary Pete Geren said on 13 November (2008) that the US Army will officially release a request for proposals to modernise the M4 5.56 mm carbine in September 2009, ensuring the army's continued commitment to the weapon. "Today is an important step in an effort to ensure that our soldiers always have the best - not just the best today, but the best tomorrow," Geren told a gathering of defence industry experts[first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 20 November 2008]
nnnn
-
why ?
fail to bash australia and today bash USA ?
-
This guy claimed get news from recent industry day:
Pl note
No bullpups (Tavor, AUG or F2000)surprisingly and no XM8
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004587.html
M4 Replacement Initiative Moves Forward (Slowly)
I know it's a bit late, but I got my hands on some material that came out of the mid-November "industry day" held in the DC area to show the Army what's out there to replace the M4.
You'll remember that the service has indicated it's finally willing to explore updated options to its standard-issue service rifle...now the M4. Whether you think the M4 sucks or not, it makes sense that the Army is breaking free of its single-minded love affair with the M16 and its variants.
I missed the industry day (dumb me) but I got a write-up on the meeting from a renowned weapons expert that many of you might know. He did not send this directly to me, I obtained it through other sources, so I'm going to protect its origins and the author.
According to the expert, "19 vendors showed up at the industry day, including Polytech, KAC, Precision Reflex, POF, S&W, FN with SCAR, Superior Tooling, AAI with LSAT, LWRC, Colt Defense, Barrett, Sabre Defense, Armwest, HK, Bushmater/Remington, Robinson Armament, Troy Industries and SIG Sauer." Army secretary Pete Geren showed up as well, along with key players from PEO Soldier and PEO Soldier Weapons. According to one of my sources, fortunately some congressional staffers from top lawmakers who want to take up this issue also showed, including staffers for Salazar, Hutchison, Sessions and John Warner (though we know he's retiring soon).
The weapons expert said:
Lots of AR-based systems on display, mostly off the shelf items, many op rod guns and conversions. A few medium caliber (6.5G and 6.8 Rem SPC and 7.62x39mm R) platforms on display and a few 7.62x51mm systems as well. No bullpups (Tavor, AUG or F2000)surprisingly and no XM8. Lots of discussion about op rod upgrades to M4's versus complete new systems. Little talk that I heard anyway about user convertible (barrel, buttstock, caliber) modular family of weapons but there were one or two such systems there.
One thing my source told me -- and yes, he does have a stake in the adoption of a new rifle -- was that Geren's presence, while adding senior-level gravitas to the event, was essentially meaningless because he's probably going to leave in 60 days. And the fact that neither the service chief nor vice chief showed up at the event sent a signal the the uniformed leadership isn't on board with the idea and could recommend to the next secretary that they abandon the effort.
Here's more from the debrief:
Industry reps I spoke with were cautiously optimistic having been burned a time or two before in the last 10 years. A major difference here is the presence of a formal requirements document (CDD) as per the JCIDs process that is due to be completed and staffed by the end of CY08 and expected to be approved by summer CY09 with possible draft RFQ release to industry for comment w/i 4QFY09 (and a second Industry Day) and eventual final RFP release by Sept. 2009; all this as per COL Tamilio's (new PM-SW formerly from the REF) briefing to the attendees. Each vendor was allotted 30 minutes to present to a US Govt team in private. Lots of new faces within the "small arms system" to include a new PEO Soldier, PM-SW and PM-SW IW and USAIC reps....
This process of consulting industry in support of a real fair and open competition for the next service rifle has not occurred in more than 70 years, likely since the M1 Garand "competition" prior to WWII. This was a historic day! Lots of oversight on this one from the real end user side and at senior leadership levels. We are on the right track finally. Lets just hope it doesn't get derailed with changes in the US Govt over the next 2 months. Time will tell. Keep the pressure on!
So chew this over for a bit. Next up: What small arms threats are the services worried about?
-- Christian
Comments---end of comments
-
many rifles here
http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/replacing_the_m4/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/army_carbineday_112308w/
quote.......................
Each company was given equal space to display their weapons at the event. Congressional aides and reporters were given a strict 60-minute window in the morning to talk to gun makers and handle weapons before being asked to leave. The rest of the day was consumed with participants making 30-minute presentations to Army officials as well as representatives from the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
Many companies have been preparing for this opportunity for years.
Smith & Wesson, a company founded 156 years ago, made a dramatic shift three years ago with its decision to go after the military market, said Joe Bergeron, a defense product manager for the company.
“Over the past three years, we have invested more than $50 million in facilities,” he said, describing Smith & Wesson’s three manufacturing sites in the United States.
“We saw a need for the rifle,” he said. The company has developed a line of M4-style weapons that feature a gas port that’s positioned mid-length along the barrel. This midlength system helps reduce some of the port pressure, “allowing the gun to run a little cooler and cleaner,” he said.
Bushmaster/Remington officials were showing off their Adaptive Combat Rifle.
The weapon features a gas piston operating system, tool-less quick change barrels and a multi-adjustable folding stock. It was created and first unveiled as the Masada in 2007 by Magpul Industries of Boulder, Colo. Magpul is best known for inventing a molded-plastic magazine attachment that helps combat troops perform speedy magazine changes.
Since then, Magpul signed a deal with the larger Bushmaster to produce and market it as the ACR.
LWRC International LLC displayed several of its piston gas system carbines that are available in multiple calibers.
The company’s M6A2PSD is chambered for 6.8mm and features an eight-inch barrel.
“That eight-inch barrel, 6.8mm — in that tight little package — is delivering more velocity and a bigger bullet than a 14.5-inch M4 is,” said Dave Hall, LWRC consultant with a special operations background.
FNH USA displayed both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm versions of its SCAR as well as a conversion kit to adapt the weapon to 6.8mm.
“It’s an open architecture design; if they want a different bell or whistle, we can put it on or take it off,” said Gabe Bailey of FNH USA. “If they don’t want a feature like a selector level; if they don’t want the butt stock to fold we have a non-folding stock.”
The company hopes to start delivering low-rate initial production SCARs to Special Operations Command by January, Bailey said. In addition to SCAR, FNH USA makes the Army’s M2 and M240 machine guns and the M249 squad automatic weapon.
Some gun company representatives said they were skeptical about this latest effort given the Army’s track record.
From 2002 to 2005, the service developed the XM8 as a replacement for the conventional Army’s M16 family. The $33 million program led to infighting in the service’s weapons community and eventually died after failing to win approval at the Defense Department level.
The XM8 was a spinoff of an older Army program called Objective Individual Combat Weapon.
Started in 1994, the OICW program featured the XM29, which combined a 5.56mm carbine with a 20mm airburst weapon to maximize ground soldier firepower. But after a decade, development had stalled in the face of technical challenges that made the weapon too heavy and bulky.
Together the XM29 and the XM8 ended up costing the Army $100 million.
Still, participants of the industry day said they were pleased the Army took this step.
“I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the soldiers; it will give a whole industry a chance to give some input into updating the” M4, said David Dunlap, president of Precision Reflex Inc. “The weapon is a good weapon, but it does need updating.”
But there was also an undercurrent of skepticism by many small-company officials who wondered if the Army’s process would treat them fairly and not favor larger small-arms companies the service has dealt with in the past, said several individuals who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution.
When asked about this concern, PEO soldier commander Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller said “it’s better to be fair like this through the whole process. We are going to have another industry day; we have the big guys, but we want to see more small guys because small guys can come up with these great new and innovative ways to deal with things.”---end of quote
-
US$100 million is peanuts to the US military.
when you compare that relative to their annual budget and the emergency defence bills that G W Bush has been signing. 100 million out of 300+ billion USD not including Black funds.
its 1/30 of 1 % of the US military's budget. big deal really.
absolute peanuts. maybe even like a hair. have you seen the amount of money they lost or spent on cancelled R&D for the airforce ? or the F22 line closure costs/fee ?
*please sing to the tune of Sex bomb*
dead horse dead horse ! what you gotta do when the threads locked down ? dead horse dead horse
-
What is this blathering fool going about again? The US Army is huge and replacing a rifle takes ages. Now, all we need is the National Guard of the State of Texas to come right down here and screw the SAF several times over.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
What is this blathering fool going about again? The US Army is huge and replacing a rifle takes ages. Now, all we need is the National Guard of the State of Texas to come right down here and screw the SAF several times over.
haha, he'd just take it as encouragement.
Texas is one of the Top 5 fattest states in america. something like 1 in 5 persons are obese there. wont bet too much on that.
but one MEU battlegroup might be enough to take us all out. if they move fast enough.
-
If we really wanted to be cynical about it, a small flight of B-52 bombers with nuclear tipped cruise missiles would have wasted Singapore without too much of a thought and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it...
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
If we really wanted to be cynical about it, a small flight of B-52 bombers with nuclear tipped cruise missiles would have wasted Singapore without too much of a thought and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it...
nukes in singapore ? that will drive up the price of oil overnight to US$100. we do have a certain structural power in the sense of Nodal flows.
yeap. no need nuclear tipped missiles. just carpet bomb from changi to Jurong and we are almost back to the stone age.
in any case, Christmas Special for our dear lionnoisy :
