UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Section infantry weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Simon82
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Simon82 » 15 Oct 2018, 00:29

Ron5 wrote:
Very naive question, but given the problem with the 7.62 ammunition is size & weight, can it be made smaller & lighter?


Whatever happened to caseless ammunition? I remember that being the future once.

If you’re of the correct era you may also remember the mocked-up photos of futuristic soldiers from the unimaginably distant year 2000 with their visored helmets (with integrated head-up display and night-vision!) clutching the ever present Heckler & Koch G11 rifle.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Oct 2018, 07:42

Thanks, LJ. A good interview of Textron's Prender.

Did you notice how he did not want to use the word "belt" ?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:belt fed LMG


[as] it has been stipulated that the nxt-SAW should also accept the ammo ** as it is carried for the squad rifle** and then those rounds will not be linked.



As a technical note, he also points out how theirs is different from "caseless".

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Oct 2018, 13:10

Yes I did notice that so I stand corrected.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Oct 2018, 13:57

It is not "all that bad" though.

Relying on the synopsis by the firearmsblog, for key bits of the publicly available documents
"Just a week before the Association of the United States Army (AUSA)’s 2018 annual meeting Army Contracting Command has released a new draft Next Generation Squad Weapons Prototype Opportunity Notice (PON).
On the 25th June, the US Army awarded six Other Transaction Agreements (or OTAs) to five companies: AAI Corproation Textron Systems, FN America (awarded two contracts – likely for the FN HAMR and a belt fed gun), General Dynamics, PCP Tactical and SIG Sauer.

quantities of magazines/drums/belts/other required to provide a minimum of 210 stowed rounds. The PON leaves the ammunition carriage system of the NGSW-AR open while stipulating magazines for the NGSW-R. Both weapons, however, must use the same round"
- 5 companies in the ring
- only FN has been asked for both weapons (prototypes): automatic for support, and the rifleman's weapon
-only Textron and SIG claim to have the compliant ammo (SIG for both), at least as claimed

So, what do GD and PCP Tactical have?

The plot thickens...

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 18 Oct 2018, 05:13

ArmChairCivvy wrote:only Textron and SIG claim to have the compliant ammo (SIG for both), at least as claimed


Military.com has been talking to Textron, about how they got ahead of the curve, while ARDEC was still finessing the new 6.8 GP round
- with "ahead of the curve" I mean that the deadline for prototypes (for testing for the rest of the summer) is June

“We actually used three different bullet shapes and we scaled it,” said Paul Shipley, program manager for of Unmanned Systems. “We scaled 5.56mm up, we scaled 7.62mm down and took a low-drag shape and ran that between the two” to create the 125 grain 6.5mm bullet that’s slightly longer than the Army’s new 130 grain M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round.

Textron officials maintain that the new round retains more energy at 1,200 meters than the M80A1."

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 391
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Halidon » 19 Oct 2018, 18:44

Simon82 wrote:Whatever happened to caseless ammunition? I remember that being the future once.

If you’re of the correct era you may also remember the mocked-up photos of futuristic soldiers from the unimaginably distant year 2000 with their visored helmets (with integrated head-up display and night-vision!) clutching the ever present Heckler & Koch G11 rifle.

The LSAT program which lead directly into this new competition looked at caseless and had some interesting work. Long story short, designing a practical (IOW, not G11) weapon to use caseless is very much in the realm of the possible. And designing the ammo itself is doable, but with a hitch: Without a protective case, of some sort, the propellant becomes very vulnerable to the sorts of things infantry has to contend with every day like dirt, mud, being dropped, etc. Until someone invents a propellant that's resilient enough to survive all that, without an ungodly price tag, caseless and grunts don't mix well.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Oct 2018, 19:53

The LSAT has done just that, the ammunition is more a telescoped round more akin to he CTA-40 but the case is a light weight polymer. This is still ejected but the rounds are far lighter and compact than the traditional brass cased variety. As already discussed the company responsible has developed a number of sizes ranging from 5.56 to 7.62. Dies anyone know the timeframe the US Army is looking at for its next generation infantry firearms? Would the USMC be forced to drop its recently acquired HK-416 variants?

Little J
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 19 Oct 2018, 22:36

Pretty sure I read somewhere that LSAT is an Army thing, that the Marines are being kept informed on. Rather than being something that they will get in on as soon as the army is ready to field (so the 416's should be safe).

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Oct 2018, 04:23

Lord Jim wrote:anyone know the timeframe the US Army is looking at for its next generation infantry firearms?


USMC as per above.
Army request for start of prgrm straight after testing (end of summer) was not funded; they say they will resubmit after the tests, for the following year.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby arfah » 28 Oct 2018, 08:43

-<>-<>-<>-
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Oct 2018, 10:22

arfah wrote:https://www.tactical-life.com/news/us-army-6-8mm-weapon-systems/
Relating (from the linked) "Posted on Oct. 4, the PON notes a 27-month development period, suggesting a winner could be selected at some point in 2021."
to what Gen. Milley has been saying... that they will ask for budget in 2019 and push ahead,; that would make the 27 months to production readiness. Not selecting the winner, to do that, and burn the army's money. They would, of course, but I mean parallel tracks continueing to do the same.

Little J
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 28 Oct 2018, 12:03

Is this for CT or traditional case? It's not the spc round, so related to LSAT?

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 391
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Halidon » 28 Oct 2018, 15:52

Little J wrote:Is this for CT or traditional case? It's not the spec round, so related to LSAT?

They are not (yet) specifying a preference for case type. They have selected a projectile, and given requirements for weight reduction compared to a traditional brass case, but are willing to entertain multiple approaches to creating a lighter weapon+ammo at this stage. Textron will bid CT and be the early favorite, but others are likely to bid hybrid cases and will be considered in this round of development.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Oct 2018, 16:34

Halidon wrote: are willing to entertain multiple approaches to creating a lighter weapon+ammo


The right approach. Basically saying that "we have done the homework for you" as for the effects that at best can be achieved at range... indeed a couple of decades worth of homework, lab & trials
- you, the industry, take the projectile as a given, backwards integrate it to a gun that can make best use of it (cartridge, linking, chamber pressures, length of barrel that (as a minimum) will work, recoil...)
- hey, this is a competition! See you at the ranges, next summer

Tinman
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Tinman » 09 Nov 2018, 14:25

The lighter the weapon and rounds, the more rounds the infantryman will carry.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Nov 2018, 16:36

The Ruskies tried the trick, by making the AK-47 into AK-74. For the same weight as the former plus 180 rounds you can carry the latter, with 300 for it
- still, after a decade of experience, a senior representative of Russian military said "oh boy, why did we have to step on the same rake as them" as in NATO/ the US

Tinman
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Tinman » 09 Nov 2018, 22:50

I always carried more, plus link, plus more.

Contacts burn through ammunition, then some. It gets emotional.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 09 Nov 2018, 23:29

Less shit, more link. We jumped with 12x 30 5.56, 200 of the same in bandoliers, 100 rds link for the gympy, and 2 days food ( chances of living past that were slim!!).

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Nov 2018, 09:17

Tony Williams has this as part of his intro on UKLandPower, but obviously his talking about "average" soldier, average as in build:

"To summarise, the total load weighs 63.9 kg, divided as follows:

Assault Order, including VIRTUS system with 4.99 kg body armour, CBRN kit (4.71 kg), rifle and 4 magazines: 31.5 kg

Patrol Order, including more clothing, belted MG ammunition, etc: 16.26 kg

Marching Order, including more rations, sleeping bag, shelter etc: 16.17 kg.

Since the average weight of a soldier is around 70 kg, that means that he (or she) will be carrying very nearly their own weight when in Marching Order, and still nearly 48 kg in Patrol Order.

Furthermore, the total of 63.9 kg doesn’t include: spare batteries for radios; 40mm grenades; and additional ammunition (in Afghanistan, troops carried 7 or 8 magazines of 5.56mm, plus 200 rounds of 7.62mm link – considerably more than assumed in these calculations).

Just a reality (vs. John Rambo-ism) check...

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 10 Nov 2018, 23:02

My bwt 92 kg. Our standard drop weight 76kg. You lose 4.6kg of weight when you land (chutes) and about another 20 when you ditch your bergen for closing up to a contact but it is fucking heavy. There is a reason why P company was such a twat!!!

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Nov 2018, 00:07

[quote="jimthelad"] There is a reason why P company was such a twat!!![/quote

OK, so the RGR have their maroon beret
... but have not done the next bit... for the wings?

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 11 Nov 2018, 09:34

If you are referring to the Royal Ghurka Rifles then I suspect they would jump without a chute!! The Ghurkas are just about the hardest troops in the world. They deploy with their own bodyweight carried or sometime in excess. In my opinion the Ghurkas are the best light infantry in the world, they seem to instil fear and respect in everyone. The kit is heavy period. If you are airmobile or LI then it needs to be carried period! The good news is when it starts to get sporty you can unload weight quickly. The reason why the fitness regimen for LI, 3Cdo, 16 AAB is so high is to allow this. Even the Bish on deployment carried 56 kg in Oman (clerical gear, company first aid kit, spare batteries for the Satcom and radios, and 2 camel pak).

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Nov 2018, 09:52

I agree with all you say (and they are also lovely people; I have a lot of opportunity to observe at close range).

But is any unit within the Gurkha Brigade (1 RGR included, though they are assigned as airmobile) parachute qualified?

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 11 Nov 2018, 13:45

Not really sure. There will be some elements who will have cross trained up to tactical air insertion level but most will be the rotor borne or assault aviation landing trialled in the 90's (definitely not for the faint hearted). There was a Ghurka para battalion along with a Guards para battalion but they were lost prior to 1980's.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Tinman » 12 Nov 2018, 21:10

Wasn’t there a blanket approach for 16AA that all have the pink hat, regardless of (P), company? Or other arduous courses?


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest