UK Defence Forum

Today, Mattis will formalise a Task Force that will pour a $ bn into frontline infantry upgrades.

Hot on the heels of those immediate upgrades will be coming (from breakingdefence reporting)
"The most contentious part of the portfolio is probably replacing the M16, whose killing power and reliability have been hotly debated since its disastrous early days in Vietnam. It’s not clear how the task force will interact with existing service initiatives. While the Marines are moving ahead with wide fielding of the M27, a longer-ranged rifle in the same small caliber (5.56 mm), the Army has decided the M27 isn’t a big enough advancement and wants to field an all-new Next Generation Squad Weapon starting in five years. (Skeptics will note the Army killed earlier small arms programs on similar grounds and soldiers are still stuck with the M16 and its carbine version, the M4). Mattis probably won’t tell the Marines to slow down but he may want the Army to speed up."

The other US army modernisation priorities are listed here, in a short format, by defencenews:


"Brig. Gen. Steve Maranian leads the Long-Range Precision Fires team.
Brig. Gen. Dave Lesperance takes charge of the next-gen combat vehicle team.
Col. Wally Rugen will lead the Future Vertical Lift team.
Brig. Gen. Randall McIntire is assigned to the air and missile defense team.
Brig. Gen. C.D. Donahue will lead the soldier lethality team.
Maj. Gen. Maria Gervais will lead a separate CFT for the Synthetic Training Environment.

Additionally, to get after the network priority, there will be two team leads:


Maj. Gen. Pete Gallagher will lead the network, command, control, communications and intelligence team.
Kevin Coggins will lead the precision, navigation and timing team."

The early announcements were talking about 6 as the network priority was still in the works (and came out, not as one, but two more).
- as our on-going review (across the whole Dept) carries a similar name, there's a good tick list on army's part?

I like the look of the M27.

Other goodies rolled out with it:
"Squad members were given an M27 with a suppressor and an Ops-Core helmets with built-in hearing protection systems to muffle loud noises while enhancing other sounds a Marine may need to hear in combat. The squad was also outfitted with 60-round Magpul polymer drum magazines as well as light body armor used by Marine Special Operations Command and advanced night-vision goggles.

Late last year, Marines were spotted doing live-fire drills with the M38 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle, which carried a more advanced scope than the M27 as well as a suppressor. The Corps plans to designate one infantry squad member as "marksman" and equip them with the M38, allowing them to engage targets at 300 to 600 meters."
plus at least one with laser rage finder on it, per squad, so that you can call in fire reliably without having to dig for extra pieces of kit, just for that

Tinman wrote:I like the look of the M27.

During a seminar at the 2018 Future Soldier Technology conference, held in London 12th-14th March, the CO of the British Army’s Infantry Trials and Development Unit confirmed that the L110A2/A3 would be dropped. The move will widen the debate around suppressive vs precision fire.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018 ... hine-guns/

I've written a (long) piece about that and all the other developments. Carl Gustav seems to be on the way back to the platoon. http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... -army.html

Gabriele wrote:I've written a (long) piece about that and all the other developments. Carl Gustav seems to be on the way back to the platoon. http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... -army.html

Did you know the L115A3 is getting a new chassis. They are converting them to the new AI AXMC multi-caliber chassis.

Zealot wrote:

During a seminar at the 2018 Future Soldier Technology conference, held in London 12th-14th March, the CO of the British Army’s Infantry Trials and Development Unit confirmed that the L110A2/A3 would be dropped. The move will widen the debate around suppressive vs precision fire.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018 ... hine-guns/

I can see it suddenly being re-issued when the next war kicks off.
Did HK fix the L86's "split groups" problem when they replaced the barrel in the A2 upgrade, or is that why it has been quietly dropped from service?

benny14 wrote:

Gabriele wrote:I've written a (long) piece about that and all the other developments. Carl Gustav seems to be on the way back to the platoon. http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... -army.html

Did you know the L115A3 is getting a new chassis. They are converting them to the new AI AXMC multi-caliber chassis.

I saw a photo a long while ago, without real context attached, but this is news to me. So far i've only ever seen photos of the L115A3 with its "old" chassis.

Gabriele wrote: I saw a photo a long while ago, without real context attached, but this is news to me. So far i've only ever seen photos of the L115A3 with its "old" chassis.

An Accuracy International employee told me at the great british shooting show a couple months back. He said they are buying the new chasis to upgrade their L115A3 rifles.

Gabriele wrote:

benny14 wrote:

Gabriele wrote:I've written a (long) piece about that and all the other developments. Carl Gustav seems to be on the way back to the platoon. http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... -army.html

Did you know the L115A3 is getting a new chassis. They are converting them to the new AI AXMC multi-caliber chassis.

I saw a photo a long while ago, without real context attached, but this is news to me. So far i've only ever seen photos of the L115A3 with its "old" chassis.

Think I may have put the pic up on MPN years and years ago. Was given to me by the guy who took it, no real context provided.

The AW50s are also being upgraded to the AX50s.

Great article! The plan with the L85A3 makes total sense, but I am concerned about how some in the Army seem to want to equip the Infantry section purely with either the L85A3 or the L129A1. The idea of these two weapons being able to suppress an opponent sufficiently to allow another fire team to advance sounds a bit shaky. Are they fixating on Afghanistan, where the above might have sufficed, but against a peer opponent it seems woefully inadequate. Ok the 5.56mm Minimi may have been disappointing, even with the longer barrel, but a base of fire weapon that relies on 30 rounds or less will have difficulty getting the job done. I would have like the Army to seriously look at the 7.62mm Minimi Mk3 to replace its 5.56mm cousin and the L7 at platoon level.

Add to this the idea of replacing the underslung grenade launcher in favour of a stand alone six shot also concerns me. I see images of the M79 grenadiers from Vietnam being reborn, but will the same issues arise, primarily what other weapon will he (or she) carry, only a pistol? Surely each fire team having a UGL is sufficient especially with improved grenades.

Adopting the Carl Gustav M4 should be a no brainer, the history and evolution of the CG speaks for itself.

The organisation of the Infantry needs serious attention, and I personally favour the idea of infantry Platoons comprising of an HQ section commanding four Sections each of 6 men. These would operate in pairs, mutually supporting each other when advancing to contact. Each would have;

2 x L85A3
1 x L129A1
1 x Minimi Mk3
2 x L85A3 with L123 A1 UGL.
In addition the Section would carry NLAW as required.

Each Infantry Company would comprise of an HQ , commanding three Platoons organised above and a Weapons Platoon. The latter would hold the Companies SFMGs (Minimi Mk3 - 3 teams), Direct Fire Support (Carl Gustav M4 - 3 teams) and Anti Tank (Javelin - 2 teams). The Platoon would rarely operate as a whole but more often dispersed amongst the three Infantry Platoons in the case of the SFMG and RCL whilst the Javelin team would probably be under the direct command of the Company HQ. Also held at Company level would be the units Snipers and UAV and other ISTAR assets. A minor point, but important is for the transport of these units to have modular storage, to allow efficient storage for the weapons and equipment of which ever section is carrier without resorting to specialised vehicles. For the Light Role and other Infantry without organic AFV transport, a load carrying platform is vital. Of the vehicles suggested the Hippo X stands out as the Supercat larger but younger brother. It should be a must for 16 Air Assault and also for 3 Commando as a minimum. Removing firepower from an unit to save weight sound great until you are in combat. then you want as much firepower as you can bring and service, or so I am told. A platform like the Hippo X is or will become essential for operations, and need to be a far higher priority.

Well that is my initial spin on what has been put forward in the aforementioned excellent article. I look forward to the follow up.

Found a short, old thread on ARRSE on the L115A3 change of chassis. Apparently first aired back in 2015. Will be interesting to see if this time it is a true go. We should start seeing them in photos in the coming months, in the case.

Lord Jim wrote: images of the M79 grenadiers from Vietnam being reborn, but will the same issues arise, primarily what other weapon will he (or she) carry, only a pistol? Surely each fire team having a UGL is sufficient especially with improved grenades.

No, no:
A squad of 11:
He/ she busy with leading:
- a HK grenade pistol
- a radio man in tow

3x3:
2 teams with Minimi, with the same rounds, for it, as the the rest of the team
1 team with CG, instead of the minimi
... there we go!

That is probably the lightest you could go. What arrangements would their transport follow with eleven men, women and others? When you say Grenade Pistol, are you referring to a single shot launchers like the HK?

Grenadier Guards have just received the first of the L85A3s!

(Volume Warning)


(Volume Warning)

ArmChairCivvy wrote: 2 teams with Minimi, with the same rounds, for it, as the the rest of the team

SAW replacement is marching on, effectively being given to every rifleman (in a rifle squad, that is) in the USMC:
"according to an April 27 press release from Marine Corps Systems Command.

The Marines are paying $7.4 million for the first 5,650 IARs, at an average cost of $1,300 each. That's about $1,700 less than M27 price tag the Corps has paid in the past.

The additional M27 IARs will be fielded to active and reserve infantry platoons in 2019 to replace the M4 carbine"

Not a far cry from the weapon the French army is purchasing in 100.000 copies. Err, originals (416s)

I was wondering what, if any anti-tank weaponry is carried at the section level. Do we still use ILAW, LASM etc.

Also on the topic on anti-tank weaponry. Does the NLAW replace the Javelin in anti-tank platoons, or is it held somewhere else?

Where necessary the NLAW is given to the sections.

At section level, the carried weight becomes a constraint (of course the likely targets play a role, too). Per fired round, we could easily rank
- Javelin
- NLAW
- CG
in kg (all-in), while keeping in mind what is disposable (rather: what normally isn't disposable) and the hit probability at ranges that a section would likely find itself engaging without immediate external support.

The comeback of CG has much to do with the nature of the likely OpFor (with not that many tanks "in tow").

Gabriele wrote:Where necessary the NLAW is given to the sections.

So NLAW at section level and Javelin in the anti-tank platoon. Who in a section is trained/carries the NLAW?

Are ILAW and LASM still in service? and are there any others?

Isn't NLAW the successor to the LAW 80 and M72, being a one shot disposable AT launcher that everyone in the section is trained to pick up and use?

Yes and yes but there are still alot of the older systems lurking.