Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

The main reason for the US wishing to move to 6.8mm is that they are unsatisfied with the ability of the current 5.56mm rounds to effectively engage an Enemy at ranges up to 800m and to penetrate the body armour of an Enemy at that distance. The Rifle and Automatic Rifle are direct replacements for the M4 and the M249. The performance of the Round is however superior to the 7.62 in many ways and so it can also replace the M240 GPMG.

However another programme to develop a light Machine Gun using the .388 Norma Magnum Cartridge is well underway with SIG also being a contender. These weapons are lighter then the M240 GPMG yet have a performance that is considerably better being more akin to the much larger and heavier M2 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun, and although initially being aimed at SF use it is being seen as a M240 replacement in the Infantry Fire Support Role and for installation on AFV and Helicopters.

Both these new rounds and the weapons designed to use them are using state of the art Optics, whose weight is included in any comparison, to fully utilise their range advantage. They will create a step change in Infantry firepower, whilst having little affect on the load carried by the individual soldier, actually reducing the weight od a combination of weapon, optics and standard number of rounds and magazines carried.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

Cooper wrote: 21 Apr 2022, 07:04
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Apr 2022, 04:25 Whether we adopt the Sig weapons or try to develop a UK or partner with other countries for a european weapon will affect the cost and timeline for any programme to replace
I'd have thought that the cost is going to have to come way down on the Sig platform for the UK to adopt it. Something like $4,000 a piece at the minute.

UK would need, what..at least 100,000? for a service wide replacement, with some in reserve. Of course that would be done over at least a decade, probably two, so the cost could be spread, and in relative terms, a £400 million purchase for a weapons platform is small potatoes, I suppose.
More like 200,000 to 250 000 when you take in Army , Navy , Air force plus Reserves Force's

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote: 21 Apr 2022, 13:31
Cooper wrote: 21 Apr 2022, 07:04
Lord Jim wrote: 21 Apr 2022, 04:25 Whether we adopt the Sig weapons or try to develop a UK or partner with other countries for a european weapon will affect the cost and timeline for any programme to replace
I'd have thought that the cost is going to have to come way down on the Sig platform for the UK to adopt it. Something like $4,000 a piece at the minute.

UK would need, what..at least 100,000? for a service wide replacement, with some in reserve. Of course that would be done over at least a decade, probably two, so the cost could be spread, and in relative terms, a £400 million purchase for a weapons platform is small potatoes, I suppose.
More like 200,000 to 250 000 when you take in Army , Navy , Air force plus Reserves Force's
There's 150,000 combined A2 and A3 in British inventory.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/how-man ... 20question.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
Tempest414

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by BB85 »

One thing I expected to be included on any future rifle was a universal/integrated power source for the optics, night vision and lasers to reduce weight and bulk.
Maybe it was considered a single point of failure and to keep everything running off their own batteries.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by SW1 »

I guess the question is, is this a change we should be following?
BB85 wrote: 21 Apr 2022, 15:32 One thing I expected to be included on any future rifle was a universal/integrated power source for the optics, night vision and lasers to reduce weight and bulk.
Maybe it was considered a single point of failure and to keep everything running off their own batteries.
Not sure but is this what your asking for

https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-a ... next-year/

At a Wednesday media briefing, two Army brigadier generals and a colonel answered questions about the selection, the weapon, the ammunition and the fielding process.
The first batch of NGSW rifles and automatic rifles, along with their high-tech fire control optic, are scheduled to arrive to a not-yet-identified Army unit by the end of fiscal 2023, which means by or before October 2023.

The $4.7 billion rifle and automatic rifle weapons contract and the $2.7 billion contract for the advanced, computer-assisted fire control optic that works with both weapons, are the most substantial changes to individual- or squad-level small arms in generations.

In January, the Army selected Vortex Optics and Sheltered Wings to provide the NGSW Fire Control optic, dubbed the M157, for $2.7 billion over the next decade.

The M157 is more than an optic, it has the following features:
Variable magnification optic
Backup etched reticle
Laser rangefinder
Ballistic calculator
Atmospheric sensor suite
Compass
Visible and infrared aiming lasers
Digital display overlay
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Lord Jim

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

It appears that the US Military has decided to upgrade its M240 Machine Guns to fire the same 6.8mm rounds as the winning Sig Sauer entry for the NGSW competition. It seems it only required a barrel change to convert the guns, greatly increasing their range and lethality, so the M240 will in all likelihood continue as a fire support weapon. This would also be a good option for the British Army when we eventually move to the same ammunition.

IU wonder what the state of the L7s are in the British Army. With the reduction in size there should be plenty around so this should reduce the wear and tear on the weapons as a result of the hard use over the last two decades if things have been properly managed. The weapon is still in production and the lighter M240L used by the military could be the best option for any purchases of new weapons.

This would be a far cheaper option that purchasing the new .388 LMG currently being developed for the SF, though this weapon may still find a place in a number of Army and/or USMC units we will have to wait and see.

Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

I'd like to see a link to that, please. True Velocity have posted videos of them rebarrelling M110's, M240's, M134's, Knights LAMG and a bolt action sniper rifle (can't remember which one). But I've yet to see Sig doing similar, especially with the 20+% increase in chamber pressure.

https://www.overtdefense.com/2022/04/20 ... usses-ngsw
These users liked the author Little J for the post:
mr.fred

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

Meanwhile for comparison on the other side of the Channel when you have done a procurement process with professionals experienced people with cold determination on having the best option on cost and on time for the warfighter the results speak for themselves

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by jimthelad »

Not sure you are right. The 416 seems to have ejector port jams, excessive recoil, and cant hit a damn thing past 200m. So much so, the crew in Hereford now use Long barrel C6's or use or the sniper spotter weapon when in the desert or where range is a factor.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

That does seem to go against the experiences of other world militaries who are increasingly adopting both the 416 and 417. The Hereford bunch have their choice of weapons as well as some rather unique requirements, but if the US military are using both for Marksman platforms, and it has developed a reputation that whilst not the cheapest option it is ne of the most reliable. Mind you all AR-15 based weapons with shortened barrels such as the M4 and 416 have issues affecting the performance and lethality at ranges over 300m. This si why the L85A2/A3 is superior in both those categories, though heavier and right hand only. This is why te US started the NGSW programme.

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

On the H&K portofolio is also this bad boy !!!
Yes the HK 433 is a little more expensive but they have build it like a tank

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Isn't that the gun they put forward for the G36 replacement programme? It lost but the programme is now mired in the courts as HK claimed the winner infringed many of HK's proprietary components, in other words copied them illegally.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
leonard

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

Yes you are right that was Hk second offering ather then the variant of the Hk 416 A8 wich after the disqualification of Haenel a.g. offering for pattern infringement was declared the winner but the program is still in courts as Haenel a.g have appeal the ruling so everyone is waiting the court decision again.

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Gtal »

Noteably both France and Germany chose the HK 4XX family to outfit their militaries.

Mark my words, those two are quietly driving forward wholesale harmonization of their equipment and capabilities across the board.

Seems to have really started around 2016...

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

For clarification this is the Hk 416 A8 that the Bundeswehr ultimate chose as the next service rifle as always and is a big if a German Federal court don t judge atherways.
https://t.co/zyQ7l1mQL3

Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Gtal wrote: 05 May 2022, 13:56 Noteably both France and Germany chose the HK 4XX family to outfit their militaries.

Mark my words, those two are quietly driving forward wholesale harmonization of their equipment and capabilities across the board.

Seems to have really started around 2016...
The 416 was the Germans second choice...

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

I don't know if this is the correct thread for this but anyone have any knowledge of the state of the inventory of the MILAN atgm missile in British Army or their is none ???
Meanwhile in Ukraine

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by jimthelad »

We used the 2T missile, I think the last Bk was manufactured in 2004. The motor had a shelf life of 4yr in environmental storage without safety/servicing at depot level so I would imagine all of our units would be life expired and disposed of. Definitely not one of ours though, no MIRA unit.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Did anyone actually adopt the Milan 3? I think France maybe did but not sure.

Germany was still using Milan until recently I thought, as Spike/MELLS has been slow to enter service (ordered in 2019). They have therefore been maintaining their Milan stockpiles I would guess and so could send serviceable missiles and launchers to Ukraine.

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

Yes France did adopt MILAN III but i think the latest clients for this particular variant of the Atgm is Greece and also the Indian Army quit recently us in 2021 made a big order for almost 5000 missiles but the order was for MILAN 2T variant.

Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

Not scientific, but an interesting look at barrel length vs Velocity...


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

South Africa bought the latest version of Milan quite recently, and it was used in Iraq and Syria very effectively.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Review of why the US Army chose the Sig weapon as the winner of the NGSW programme, replacing the exisiting M4 and M249.

Could we see this weapon in UK service post 2030? By then the weapon will be far more mature after a number of years of use by the US Military.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacleonardDahedd

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Here are some questions regarding the future of small arms for the British Army. Firstly, by the beginning of the next decade the British Army's Infantry as well as the RAF Regiment should be introducing a replacement for the L85A3, which by than will be long overdue. The Royal Marines are only now receiving their new 5.56mm C8 based L118 carbines so could change these at a later date. The question that arises is what should replace the L85and possible the L129?

The US Army has just chosen the winners of its NGSW competition for a new Rifle/Automatic Rifle and Combat Optic, using the 6.8x51mm. These are the Sig Sauer M5 Rifle and M250 Automatic Rifle with both using the hi tech M157 Advanced Optic. It is interesting though that other US Military Services do not seen to be in a hurry to adopt this new weapon with the USMC still in the process of adopting the HK416 based M27 5.56mm as a Rifle, a Automatic Rifle and a DMR. Will this new round become the new NATO Standard? Well given the uptake of th 5.56mm round is still not complete over forty years from its adoption as the new NATO Standard, even if the M157 was adopted as the next standard it cold well be in to the 2040s before this happens.

So what should the UK do? try and keep the L85s currently in service going for at least another twenty years? Should we adopt a new 5.56mm rifle as an interim weapon for around twenty years to see how things pan out with the M157? Should we follow the US Army and adopt the M5 and M250 at least for our frontline Infantry? Or should we try to adapt a cheapen weapon, most likely a 7.63mm, to the new M157 cartridge, and opt for a simpler Combat Optic as an overall cheaper option? What do people think?
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
leonard

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

In view of the the huge success that the MATADOR/DND RGW 90 is having in Ukrainian Army service was this weapon system test it ore considered for use by the British Army even for special forces use. Any information on this matter ???


Post Reply