UK Defence Forum

Sig Sauer NGSW 6.8x51mm

https://www.janes.com/article/91244/dse ... gsw-system

Textron's entry into the NGSW programme...
(tried attaching photo, but "Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached")
Check out the rifle, It looks a bit... Erm, cumbersome would be the polite way to put it.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... rototypes/

I wonder if anything will actually result form this programme? There is a well publicised history of the US Military trying to field the ultimate small arms with $Bns spent so far. he fact that each submission also included its own take on the desired 6.8mm ammo doesn't bode well in my books. Surely it would b better if they actually designed and agreed on a single ammo type and then went about designing weapons to use it.

Seems like the SA80A3 model is going ahead

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... tract.html

And I bet no one has had the common sense to get the new handguard changed from (the proprietary) HKeymod to (the superior) MLOK

Good Question, though it does now have a rail along the entire upper part of the rifle.

All three covered in one article: https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... MDAwNzc1S0

https://www.janes.com/article/92294/ray ... f-munition
An interesting option for the Carl Gustav. I wonder how the cost per missile compares to the Javelin? The ability of the round to be fired within enclosed spaces would make it an excellent weapon of urban conflict. This together with the other varieties of ammunition make an even stronger argument for the Army to adopt the M4 version, especially our high readiness units which are in desperate need of additional firepower.

Doing some reading on the L85A2 and A3 it seems the British Army has plans to start introducing a replacement around 2025 yet even if an off the shelf weapon is chosen, shouldn't there be some work being done now to assess the various weapons available. A fly in the ointment maybe the US Army's current programmes to replace its M4, M248 and M240 with a new range of weapons with the first two firing a new intermediate round and the later to fire the .338 Lapua Magnum. Are we waiting to see how these programmes go. This would be interesting and most of NATO is going ahead and re equipping its militaries with mainly H&K or Colt Canada designs, in 5.56mm. Has anyone got any up to date information or where the UK is going regarding its next rifle or indeed collection of fire arms replacing everything but the newly adopted Glock 17s?

.338 Norma Magnum, not the Lapua. I can't see them replacing anything till the Americans decide what to do, could be expensive if they have to go over to the new calibre before the new weapons have even filtered through, I suppose in five years time they might be thinking the Yanks will have sorted it out and introduced the new calibres, but does anyone think this the MOD can be that rational?

The lowest bidder shall win!

Qwerty wrote:The lowest bidder shall win!

There was a time when the UK Gvmnt could have bought HK with the monies it subsequently paid for HK to 'right' the half-baked design

The two first mentioned US contestants make sense, but the Norma Magnum for anything else than a vehicle mounted MG??

Lord Jim wrote:Doing some reading on the L85A2 and A3 it seems the British Army has plans to start introducing a replacement around 2025...

With the A3 just being introduced, I can see the MoD's search for a new rifle starting in / after 2025 with an introduction to service around 2030... Basically giving the Yanks time to decide what our next calibre will be

From what I have read the US Army want its M240 replacement to have a round in between the current 7,62 and the 12.7mm Browning M2. I do not think they will use this as a Section or Squad weapon but more for sustained fire support at platoon level. At Section and Squad level it will basically be the Combat Rifle and Automatic Rifle with the obligatory Under Slung Grenade Launchers. Where they will end up placing the M$ Carl Gustav is another question and will they employ a DMR version of the new rifle is another. I have also read the we and a couple of other friendly nations have a watching brief on the US Army Programme which I found interesting

Video of a .338 GPMG.

The Bullpup needs a bit more refinement, but a very clever design...

Little J wrote:The Bullpup needs a bit more refinement, but a very clever design...

Based on what I’ve seen of the Grot rifles, I’m very impressed. I believe that there is a development in 7.62NATO but I don’t know if it retains the modular construction.
http://fabrykabroni.pl/en/produkty/karabiny/msbs/

Yea, don't know much about the bigger brother, it looks like it could be as adaptable (though I haven't heard about a bullpup version)

(anyone speak Polish?)

You mentioned that the bullpup could use some refinement up. What do you mean by that? TIA.

For example, when he puts on the handguard, he is bolting it on... If they could find a push pin solution, that be better. Having said that, this generation is better than the previous one that used a unique bracket (so they could use the same handguard as the conventional rifle layout).

Little J wrote: he is bolting it on... If they could find a push pin solution

True, but what at the start of this (long) thread was something to be done in armouries is now no longer far removed from the stages involved in cleaning your weapon (in the field).

There is a chain of thought now that stand alone grenade launchers are now a better idea then those underslung. We are not talking about the multishot weapons here. They are more handy, believed to be more accurate as they are less cumbersome and also means the launcher is not tied to one person. For the UK to move down that road wound be relatively simple as the HK grenade launcher we already use van be removed and used as such with the addition of a simple stock. The US military is looking at this an has done so in the field.

One thing I read recently was that the UK has personnel, civilian and military, embedded in the US Army's next generation Automatic Rifle and Light Machine Gun programmes which was a surprise.

Lord Jim wrote: They are more handy, believed to be more accurate as they are less cumbersome and also means the launcher is not tied to one person.

Not naming the country, but the marines were the first to go from 8 to 9 squad... and quess who carried the least: yes: the top guy, so he was tasked with one of these
- no need to mention that the main body (the army) also went for the 9 man squad, ten years later. But they used the opportunity to get 2 GPMGs in there

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the opportunity to get 2 GPMGs in

... about as heavy as one go with the section?

So next up: Javelin is luggable, but what if it is not considered enough for reach/ punch?

Gets a bit heavy even for the company level (calls for weapons companies, from which platoons can be dished out, as needed?)
https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense. ... ero_v3.jpg
exemplified by the state-of-the-art US inf. AT weapon.

The crew is so exposed that even overwatch for them has to outrange OpFor's machine guns

Tow in man portable mode was a disaster. The 82nd refused to accept it and kept Dragon, prioritising mortars. The system is very effective when vehicle mounted, and when the Sheridan/Shileagh combo left service, they increased the number of HMVV fitted systems for air insertion. This was very effective and we exercised with them frequently with this system.

The Javelin fixed all these problems. Tow takes a very long time to set up, level, initiate firing circuit, and charge discharge capacitor for launch. The blow back is vile (so was Milan though), and it takes a while for the ACLOS to lock up. The vehicle and helo mounted systems are already powered up and the helo sight has an auto-track system which speeds up firing point.