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.
Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Timmymagic » 13 Oct 2018, 11:49

Caribbean wrote:Not really sure if this is the correct thread, but it's fairly relevant. Might it be a good idea to have a few of these available at section level, particularly when you consider the need for an anti-drone weapons system?


Looks like its not just for anti drone, the effect on accuracy for firing on any moving target could be incredible. Looks like the SOCOM and the Israelis have already bought a small number for trials.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Oct 2018, 12:15

Timmymagic wrote: firing on any moving target


It is a miniature implementation of the same thing that NLAW did in anti-tank weaponry: the algorithm relies on continuity of movement during tracking and the flight time of the projectile.

That was the reason I put the home fly quote in here
- if what many soldier systems today bring with them: a rifle system that you can use from behind the corner, without exposing the 'operator', is in itself impressive, it would still fall within "shiny kit"

We are however quickly moving towards algorithms doing battle
- whatever one thinks of Steve Bannon, he has listed with clarity the areas where no one (he talks about the USA) can afford not to be on the leading edge, and for algorithms doing battle, the one from the list "The stakes are a lot higher now as the world's top economies compete on groundbreaking technologies in cloud computing, robotics, artificial intelligence and gene editing. Whoever controls these technologies will dominate global business — and more." that will carry or lose the day is artificial intelligence.

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Oct 2018, 12:43

Timmymagic wrote:
Caribbean wrote:Not really sure if this is the correct thread, but it's fairly relevant. Might it be a good idea to have a few of these available at section level, particularly when you consider the need for an anti-drone weapons system?


Looks like its not just for anti drone, the effect on accuracy for firing on any moving target could be incredible. Looks like the SOCOM and the Israelis have already bought a small number for trials.
It looks very impressive but over longer distances how would a system such as this calculate the wind drift of the bullet?

Estimating the speed of the target, the direction the target is moving in and the flight time of the bullet is relatively straightforward but wind drift is always a constant variable.

At shorter ranges in windless conditions this shouldn't be a problem but at medium to long ranges in high wind conditions 5.56 ammunition moves around a LOT.

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Timmymagic » 13 Oct 2018, 13:03

Poiuytrewq wrote:It looks very impressive but over longer distances how would a system such as this calculate the wind drift of the bullet?


Thats true, but it's still going to get the majority of rounds closer to the target than the average infantryman can manage and at that point the chance of a hit increases dramatically. At medium to long range is 5.56 much use anyway apart from as suppression?

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Oct 2018, 15:08

Timmymagic wrote:Thats true, but it's still going to get the majority of rounds closer to the target than the average infantryman can manage and at that point the chance of a hit increases dramatically.
Agreed, but is it worth the cost? A few extra rounds at close range aren't the end of the world.

Would the money be better spent improving the accuracy of infantryman by increasing the amount of range time, specifically engaging moving rather than static targets?
Timmymagic wrote:At medium to long range is 5.56 much use anyway apart from as suppression?
Depends, in windless conditions 5.56 projectiles are as stable and as accurate as any other but in high wind past 400m it does become a bit of a lottery. It's all down to the small amount of propellant in the 5.56X45 and the short barrel lengths that reduce muzzle velocity dramatically.

As an aside, the 5.56 projectiles in the heavier bullet weights (75gr to 80gr) are incredibly impressive especially when driven at higher velocities. In a precision role heavy 5.56 projectiles driven at increased muzzle velocities outperform the 7.62x51 in both trajectory and wind drift whilst maintaining comparable energy levels out to around 800m. All with much reduced recoil energy for the operator.

When weighting up the benefits between 6.5mm/6.8mm/7mm as an intermediate round it's surprising that the higher velocity, heavy for calibre 5.56 options are not regularly considered.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Oct 2018, 15:59

Poiuytrewq wrote:surprising that the higher velocity, heavy for calibre 5.56 options are not regularly considered.


(L)MGs could make good use of them, but would they still be interchangeable with std rounds, carried by the rest of the squad? Or would the higher loading start to have an effect on "the hardware"?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 13 Oct 2018, 17:20

I wonder how long the US and therefore the rest of NATO are going to be evaluating and discussing where the future lies regarding the size and weight of small arms ammunition. I have a feeling it is going to be a very long time as the US seems to be looking for the "Holy Grail" solution that has to provide so much more than existing types and it very reluctant to even more to 7.62x51 in case something better appears. Everyone is going to be riding swings and roundabout for years to come in my opinion.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby arfah » 13 Oct 2018, 18:50

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

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.

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Oct 2018, 19:07

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:surprising that the higher velocity, heavy for calibre 5.56 options are not regularly considered.


(L)MGs could make good use of them, but would they still be interchangeable with std rounds, carried by the rest of the squad?
Unfortunately not, it would require the adoption of an entirely new cartridge as the 5.56x45 is pretty much maxed out.

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Oct 2018, 19:33

arfah wrote:The answer to the holy grail calibration has existed since the 1950’s.
7x43mm (.280/30).
And they know it!
Just for anyone who doesn't know the holy grail that arfah is taking about.

This the 7x43 aka .280 British
image.jpg
From L to R: 7.62x51, 7x43/.280 British, 5.56x45

The graphs clearly show the efficiency and effectiveness of the 7x43 vs the other options.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg


Nothing comes for free. This chart shows the recoil energy of the 7x43 sits squarely between the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51.
image.jpg


Some interesting information on the development of the round.
http://www.cartridgecollector.net/28030-british-7x43
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 361
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby whitelancer » 13 Oct 2018, 20:07

In my opinion the hunt for an ideal round is a chimera.
It will only end with a compromise, just as all current rounds are, and future rounds will be. Its all a matter of making choices. While it is always useful to try and develop the ideal round for a particular set of requirements I think it would be sensible to recognise that no round is going to cover all possible needs and therefore accept the use of more than one round and organise and equip your forces accordingly.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Oct 2018, 20:41

Poiuytrewq wrote:Unfortunately not, it would require the adoption of an entirely new cartridge

The projectile is a given now (and entirely new); backwards integration is now the challenge. We will get to see what comes out by the summer. That is us... those in the know might already have something to handle - but a competition that does not make
whitelancer wrote:In my opinion the hunt for an ideal round is a chimera.

Sure is, but interchangeability within a squad/ section is a respectable goal.
whitelancer wrote:no round is going to cover all possible needs and therefore accept the use of more than one round and organise and equip your forces accordingly.

Equally true, but that is a rather bigger universe than a squad?

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Oct 2018, 21:11

whitelancer wrote:In my opinion the hunt for an ideal round is a chimera.
It will only end with a compromise, just as all current rounds are, and future rounds will be. Its all a matter of making choices. While it is always useful to try and develop the ideal round for a particular set of requirements I think it would be sensible to recognise that no round is going to cover all possible needs and therefore accept the use of more than one round and organise and equip your forces accordingly.
I think there is more to it than that.

Given the stretched nature of defence budgets in most NATO countries I think even if it was proven beyond doubt that the perfect intermediate cartridge had been developed at a realistic price point and that all existing weapons systems could be cost effectively converted to fire this new war winner, it won't be adopted anytime soon.

It's just not a priority for the majority of NATO members. The costs to roll it out NATO wide would be staggering.

Time will tell.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 361
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby whitelancer » 13 Oct 2018, 22:02

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sure is, but interchangeability within a squad/ section is a respectable goal.


Perhaps, But that is what the British Army had with the 5.56, and they no longer seem to be happy with it. As I said its all about choices, is interchangeability more important than other considerations!

Poiuytrewq wrote:Given the stretched nature of defence budgets in most NATO countries I think even if it was proven beyond doubt that the perfect intermediate cartridge had been developed at a realistic price point and that all existing weapons systems could be cost effectively converted to fire this new war winner, it won't be adopted anytime soon.


To a large extent it will depend on what the US does.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 13 Oct 2018, 23:28

That was my point, the US has be trying to replace the M16 and the 5.56 for decades and has spent billions trying to do so. AS pointed out even then if the US develops and adopts a new round how long will it be until the rest of NATO get around to accepting it as the new standard let alone adopting it. The time it took NATO to adopt the 5.56 could prove to be pretty rapid compared to what could happen this time.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Oct 2018, 06:19

whitelancer wrote:that is what the British Army had with the 5.56, and they no longer seem to be happy with it

Quite a lot has been written about "how come". Headings like "Winning back the infantry half mile" have been used in the best pieces.
whitelancer wrote:To a large extent it will depend on what the US does.
As always. Some countries have interoperability to the fore, also in this respect. Some who insist that they produce their own rounds not ever to run out when they are needed in quantity (for instance) might "take their time" which in infantry weapons is like, 30 years.
Lord Jim wrote: how long will it be until the rest of NATO get around to accepting it as the new standard let alone adopting it.

Quite.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Ron5 » 14 Oct 2018, 12:29

Very naive question, but given the problem with the 7.62 ammunition is size & weight, can it be made smaller & lighter? For example, like the Ajax gun, can the lead bit be embedded in the propellant? Maybe with a composite container instead of brass?

If I'm being daft, just say so.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Oct 2018, 13:48

Ron5 wrote: can the lead bit be embedded in the propellant? Maybe with a composite container instead of brass?


To a degree (only), yes. In a drive to get a longer bullet (better ballistics) a French study took 106 pages to conclude that, but they nuanced the case a bit further (I am sure all of the below will emerge with the new US 6.8 mm GP becoming "observable"):

"Of course, if one was to adopt a new round, it would be highly advisable that this new round case
geometry should allow (from the beginning) the easy use of a light polymer (or composite) case.
A polymer case (with a light alloy case head) could:
• be tailored so that case capacity exactly fits the powder load and avoids free volume,
decreasing shot-to-shot dispersion and improving internal ballistics, • reduce the heat transfer from the cartridge to the chamber due to their low heat conductivity, • reduce the weight of a given round by ~30-35% compared to conventional brass cased
ammunition.

The cartridge described above, with a composite case and a slightly greater body diameter
(~11.2 mm) to account for the internal volume loss due to the polymer body, is expected to be no
heavier than the current 5.56 x 45 mm SS-109. "

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Oct 2018, 14:02

Ron5 wrote:Very naive question, but given the problem with the 7.62 ammunition is size & weight, can it be made smaller & lighter? For example, like the Ajax gun, can the lead bit be embedded in the propellant? Maybe with a composite container instead of brass?
Is this what you have in mind Ron?
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Ron5 » 14 Oct 2018, 16:16

Ha, I should have patented it!

Does it work?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Oct 2018, 19:17

I am sure I have seen a video of a belt fed LMG using one of those ammo types I think the 6.5mm. It was being proposed as a replacement for the M240 and SAW, and I believe it weighed slightly less that the latter with ammunition.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Oct 2018, 19:40

Lord Jim wrote:belt fed LMG


The method is one, but they do not stop there. Namely, 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.

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 790
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Oct 2018, 19:59

Ron5 wrote:Does it work?
It does up to a point but I think it's fair to say that it's still a work in progress.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Oct 2018, 20:51

R4 asked thefirearmsblog.com to work out a puzzle for tomorrow morning, so here goes:

If it is accepted that the combat loads of current service rounds, carried within the same weight limit, are both "good, or fit for purpose" due to the greater effect/ range of the heavier, but we want to use the average number derived from those two counts as the new round will be better than 5.56 and "as good as" the 7.62.
- what will then be the design target for the combined projectile +filled cartridge, in weight?

" example with the masses of two real rounds: 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO. 5.56mm weighs about 12 grams per shot; 7.62mm about 24 grams. Keeping in mind that the average of 12 and 24 is 18, let’s see how the math shakes out:

1000 g / 12 g = 83.33…

1000 g / 24 g = 41.66…

1000 g / (83.33… + 41.66…)/2 = 16 grams

It’s counter-intuitive, but it’s simple math. The next round has to be light, because the halfway point isn’t where you think it is.

(For the math geeks in the room, you have already figured out that it is the harmonic mean you need to use for this problem, not the arithmetic mean. Since this is a family-friendly site, these terms [were omitted] to keep things understandable for everyone.)"

Originally Posted August 14, 2017 by Nathaniel F
- had to go with this one, as so far I haven't come across a photo of SIG's answer to cladding a long bullet in a hybrid casing, with optimal fill while allowing for some added thickness from weaker materials in the hybrid
- not sure if there was a display arranged @AUSA, or just an announcement

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Oct 2018, 23:01

Here is the video I was talking about:

and another one:


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest