Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

[Kirkhill]

Bump.

Further to the XM-29 OICW discussion:

I came across this reference to the DaeWoo K-11.  Apparently it has been taken into service with the South Korean army at the rate of 2 per section of 10 - 12 men.

It is a shoulder fired, bull pup, bolt action, 20mm grenade launcher with a 500 m range and EO sights, fed by five round box magazines, with an underslung M-4.  It has one common pistol grip with a selector on it and it apparently also still has room for a baynet.  ;D

It also only weighs 6.1 kg with optics and batteries but unloaded.

PS GAP:  thanks for reminding me about Strategy Page.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Did I read some place correctly that the USMC was swapping out their M249s for H&K 417s?

 

[a_majoor]

The M-27 IAR seems to have been a political trick to get rid of USMC M-4's and replace them with a "new and improved" weapon. The M-27 seems to be nothing more than an HK-416 tarted up with a heavy barrel and new furniture (if you can call 4X full length Picatinny rails furniture), and except for the short stroke piston, isn't much different from the C-7 "support" version Dimaco sold to the Dutch Marines. I don't believe it even comes with a bipod.

As a support weapon, I would rather have the C-9 with belt feed and a quick change barrel; if weight was really the issue, the Ares Shrike, Ultimax 100 or other super lightweight LMG would seem to be a better fit for the role.

 

[LordOsborne]

<-- Just an idea, please forgive in advance if this has been covered.

Instead of adopting a high tech airbursting projectile system similar to the XM-25, where you have a programmable grenade that gets fusing information from the laser rangefinder / fire control computer built into the weapon and / or sighting system, would it make more sense to take a lower-tech approach?

What I have in mind is a hand-fused air-bursting pre-fragmented 40mm LV grenade.

What I'm thinking of is taking some proven, existing technology (like a mechanical fuse) and match it to the 40mm grenade in service. I picture something akin to the HE 441D round from the Carl Gustaf (http://products.saabgroup.com/pdbwebnew/GetFile.aspx?PathType=ProductFiles&FileType=Files&Id=7989). I'm speaking from ignorance, so i'm not sure if a 40mm LV round like this already exists. I think there are electronically programmable types in development or active service designed for AGLs, but not a hand-fused airburst 40mm round. (if someone with more knowledge could shed some light, i'd be grateful)

With some extra training, I think in theory you'd get more or less the same capability as the XM-25 in a more cost-effective manner - instead of buying expensive new platforms, sights, trainers, batteries; you could just buy new rounds and add to existing training using existing GLs.


Some self-analysis:

a)  I realise that 40mm LV and the 25mm AB round from the XM-25 are not quite the same thing. Projectile payload are obviously different in addition to trajectory, velocity etc.

b)  Also I imagine there's a certain element of guesswork involved, since the hypothetical M203 gunner would have to estimate the range and dial the correct setting on the round. Since 203 gunners have to estimate the range anyway, i don't see that as a hurdle.

c)  Since this round is fused by hand, and not by a FC computer, this may slow the firing rate down a bit. I don't imagine this would compete with the rate of fire a dedicated, semi-auto GL, since the -203 is single shot anyway, but it should be stated nonetheless.


I'm just bouncing this idea around. If such a round exists already, then I've been beaten to the punch  ;D

 

[KevinB]

Instead of trying to shoehorn something into the M203 which is a bit of a legacy system at this time.

If you want a GL find a recoil reducing standalone system that allow the use of 40MM HV (from the Mk19 and HkGMG) and get a firecontrol system for it - then with new ammo you have a system that can engage from 25m-2500m in a man portable system.

 

[a_majoor]

You may be thinking of a support weapon along the lines discussed here.

The laws of physics make it difficult to make a lightweight automatic weapon firing large calibre rounds (although the Russians have had some success with the AGS-17 and AGS-30, and the Chinese have a 35mm weapon as well; these weapons are similar in size and weight to a GPMG).

 

[daftandbarmy]

<-- Just an idea, please forgive in advance if this has been covered.

Instead of adopting a high tech airbursting projectile system similar to the XM-25, where you have a programmable grenade that gets fusing information from the laser rangefinder / fire control computer built into the weapon and / or sighting system, would it make more sense to take a lower-tech approach?

What I have in mind is a hand-fused air-bursting pre-fragmented 40mm LV grenade. 

I'd prefer a 60mm MOR one tactical bound behind. One weapon can't do everything that the infantry section needs, and that's where the teamwork comes in e.g., 60mm/M203/M67s flush 'em out and the C6/7/9s chop 'em up.

 

[KevinB]

I'd prefer a 60mm MOR one tactical bound behind. One weapon can't do everything that the infantry section needs, and that's where the teamwork comes in e.g., 60mm/M203/M67s flush 'em out and the C6/7/9s chop 'em up.

:nod:
I knew I liked you

 

[ArmyRick]

Bah, this is all nonsense. I am putting into be the SWFLB Project OIC. The SWFLB is all we need for future conflicts. The SWFLB is Sharks With Freakin Laser Beams.

 

[OldSolduer]

Bah, this is all nonsense. I am putting into be the SWFLB Project OIC. The SWFLB is all we need for future conflicts. The SWFLB is Sharks With Freakin Laser Beams.

I agree!! Laser Beams attached to Frikking Sharks!

 

[Kirkhill]

Nominating ArmyRick for position of Chief Laser Attacher .... or any other position suitable for Frikking Sharks.

 

[a_majoor]

You think people would have learned form the other threads: one system isn't sufficient!

Mutant sea bass platoons *MUST* be colocated with the SWFLB dets to deal with close in targets that make it past the lasers.

 

[LordOsborne]

I wasn't trying to advocate that my hypothetical 40mm round would replace anything - I suggested it more as an additional tool in the infanteer's toolbox. I think it might have a niche to fill, but then again it's easy to speculate. Obviously the cost per round would be higher due to added complexity, but that seems to be the direction we're headed with the AGL project..

I'm not an expert so i'll avoid getting into the discussion between keeping the 60mm or embracing the CASW  ;D

 

[ArmyRick]

Look at the direction the conversation went. Are you sure you want to keep discussing 40mm and 60mm seriously here?

 

[LordOsborne]

Look at the direction the conversation went. Are you sure you want to keep discussing 40mm and 60mm seriously here?

I suppose not, unless i found a way to mount it ONTO the laser beam sharks... :blotto:

 

[Dissident]

Bump.

I'm not sure where the IAR stands right now, but I just fondled a Stoner LMG prototype and I was really impressed with a couple of things. It was light, much lighter than my AR10, or so it felt. The feed cover was an epiphany, I can't believe it was not done before: separating the rail and the feed cover so that your optics don't flop around all over the place.

And if the claims from the manufacturer rep are true, I think it needs to be the replacement for the C9, whenever that happens.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Bump.

I'm not sure where the IAR stands right now, but I just fondled a Stoner LMG prototype and I was really impressed with a couple of things. It was light, much lighter than my AR10, or so it felt. The feed cover was an epiphany, I can't believe it was not done before: separating the rail and the feed cover so that your optics don't flop around all over the place.

And if the claims from the manufacturer rep are true, I think it needs to be the replacement for the C9, whenever that happens.

The best replacement for the C9 in the section is the C6, IMHO.... bring up the Bully and let's steamroll these clowns!

 

[RCR Grunt]

The best replacement for the C9 in the section is the C6, IMHO.... bring up the Bully and let's steamroll these clowns!

Perhaps a Mk. 48 with a different barrel?  The Mk 46 and 48 were mentioned earlier in the thread as "assault MG's."  As I understand it, the Mk 48 is set up for a changeable barrel, but it's more in the way of a disposable barrel instead of the quick change barrel setup on the C9.  That isn't something desirable for a regular unit or one that could find themselves in prolonged and sustained combat.  Could FN set it up with a heavier set of barrels for issue to standard infantry units?

Bump.

I'm not sure where the IAR stands right now, but I just fondled a Stoner LMG prototype and I was really impressed with a couple of things. It was light, much lighter than my AR10, or so it felt. The feed cover was an epiphany, I can't believe it was not done before: separating the rail and the feed cover so that your optics don't flop around all over the place.

And if the claims from the manufacturer rep are true, I think it needs to be the replacement for the C9, whenever that happens.

I googled that thing and it looks pretty bad-ass... but it's kind of short, isn't it?  Would accuracy at range be an issue?

 

[Journeyman]

....I just fondled a Stoner LMG prototype....

ahem.....Kev?

op:


(I know when to defer to 'people what knows what they's talkin' about...."    )

 

[a_majoor]

I am content to wait for the LSAT program to come to fruition.

C9 equivalent LMG's about 40% lighter than the current weapon, "rifles" with 60 round magazines and we can suppose GPMG and HMG type weapons will also benefit from this technology.

There are some threads about this floating around, but I can't seem to find them right now.

Read this: http://www.aaicorp.com/pdfs/lsatps09-09-08.pdf