“It’s hugely problematic, and it’s not clear that you’re going to improve your performance close-in. Moreover, once the U.S military makes such a change, allies and partner nations would feel compelled to follow suit, he said. If you adopt a heavier caliber, you have to replace everything in the inventory. “If you don’t do anything, you’re more optimized for close-in. He believes the service is taking the right approach. “That is what the Army is trying to do,” Cancian said. The compromise to which Cancian refers would entail development of a bullet that would fit in a relatively small weapon like the 5.56 does, but also could reach out to long ranges and still hit targets. “But if you’re going to be fighting close in - at 100 meters or under 50 meters - you want something that can fire rapidly and then quickly,” Cancian said. These people say that in Afghanistan, particularly, there are opportunities to take long-range shots,” Cancian said.Įven though the history of infantry conflict shows that most engagements happen at close ranges, he said, shooters who want to hit a target at ranges of 500 meters or greater would need larger rounds with heavy bullets. “The marksmen in the services would like to optimize long-range precision fire, and they point to engagements where that is important. This, he said, is what the lethality team is coming to terms with today as it seeks to develop the new round and its corresponding weapon. The “tension” exists between proponents of ammunition suitable for short-range and longer-range fights. “Improving the ammunition is by far an easier way to improve lethality.” “It’s very expensive and very hard to change calibers,” he said. The plan to adopt the higher caliber represents a “compromise” on the Army’s part, Cancian said, but not one without inherent challenges. The service would then review the proposals after 27 months, and then award a follow-on production contract. In the announcement, contractors were told to submit their ideas under an other transaction agreements authority, which is used specifically to solicit prototype ideas. When the service published a semi-formal request for ideas on FedBizOpps last October, it specifically mentioned the intent to move to the higher caliber from the current 5.56 NATO round now in use with the M4 carbine and M249 squad automatic weapon. Mark Cancian, a senior international security advisor with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a retired Marine Corps officer, said the Army “is trying to fix a tension that has existed in small arms for a century.”Ĭancian noted the institutional desire on the Army’s part to improve the lethality of small arms, with the focus on ammunition. “A lot of effort was done by our labs in looking at what’s the right caliber for the next-generation weapon,” Thompson said. The research entailed looking at a multitude of combinations of barrel and weapon lengths, weights and calibers of both commercial and military systems. The decision to settle upon a 6.8 mm round resulted from extensive testing and research by Army laboratories, staffed by experts who closely examined factors such as threats, target sets, weight, performance and controllability, Thompson said. The ammunition and weapon must perform within 200 meters - where history shows most combat confrontations take place - and at distances, where present-day enemies are increasingly seeking to engage U.S. Under the holistic approach, the three components - ammunition, the weapon and fire control - all must function together, in any and all combat situations, Thompson said. Travis Thompson, chief of staff for the soldier lethality cross-functional team at Fort Benning, Georgia. We want our soldiers to never go into a fair fight, and always have an overmatch with their adversaries,” said Col. The Army team responsible for the project believes that while it will take some time to come to fruition, they are on the right track. Likewise, it must function properly in long-range environments, such as those found in the mountains of Afghanistan.Īdditionally, the larger ammunition should not add to the weight - and ideally, would lessen the burden - soldiers now currently carry. The round must be suitable for close- and medium-range conflicts, such as house-to-house urban engagements. However, its development hinges upon addressing two key concerns. Army leadership is committed to moving toward the adoption of a 6.8 mm round for the Next-Generation Squad Weapon.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |