Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun

[McG]

On that note, any argument on calibre or ammo type is dwarfed by the elephant in the room anyway, which is "What is the USA/NATO going to do?".

That elephant is really a ghost.  While it is a great a concept, use of a NATO standard ammunition does not matter when our own pedantic ammunition safety bureaucracy will not allow us to use another nation’s SS109 ammunition now.  I saw this even in Afghanistan where Ottawa directed that Canadians could not fire US 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm – and if any generous Americans provided us such ammunition (which happened) we were to return it or send it to KAF for destruction.  I’ve also seen the same ammunition safety bureaucracy at home arguing that if we must have oversight into the QA of production and must have certainty that a lot manufactured at the extreme edge of one nations production standards is in-line with Canada’s expected parameters of SS109.  So, if we are not going to subscribe fully to the principle of common ammunition, we should not allow ourselves to be held back by the idea.  We would not be the first NATO nation to deviate from the standard for small arms ammunition (nor likely the last).

The ability to manufacture the ammunition is not a barrier either.  As was already covered in this thread, our small arms ammunition all comes from GD-OTS (Canada).  Despite the new ownership, the government ensured a condition of sale was that the company had to stay open and owed its first obligation to producing this nation’s ammunition requirements  (in fact, if you talk to the GD-OTS guys, they are very excited about the unique ability of their Quebec facilities to produce small demand ammunition at costs much lower than other facilities).

If we want to exploit the benefits of CTA or CLA, then we really have no good reasons not to be trail-blazers.  As a worst case, we find a new series of SA & MG calibre that provide improved operational capability into the foreseeable future.  At best, we become a recognized world leader with NATO subscribing to our solutions and a massive new international customer base for Canadian made ammunition.

 

[SeanNewman]

So in a nutshell, you have had some experiences when the NATO standard ammunition did not work.

I on the other hand, have had experiences where it did work in a multinational environment and it proved to be very beneficial for everyone; just like the theory.

So what is better, to be able to share ammo sometimes or never?

 

[Matt_Fisher]

So in a nutshell, you have had some experiences when the NATO standard ammunition did not work.

I think what he's saying is that he had some experience where the NATO standard ammunition was prohibited from working due to bureaucratic regulations rather than practical ones.

 

[KevinB]

Like lots of Mk262...

Heaven forbid the CF use a more effective round...  :

 

[ArmyRick]

Everything I have read about cased ammo seems interesting. I am betting if the brits go ahead and succeed with 40mm CTWS than maybe more nations in NATo will follow.

 

[McG]

I think what he's saying is that he had some experience where the NATO standard ammunition was prohibited from working due to bureaucratic regulations rather than practical ones.

That is exactly what I am saying.  Unfortunately, having seen the empire built on administering & managing our ammunition, I am confident that this is a policy that will not go away.

So what is better, to be able to share ammo sometimes or never?

Based on the "no non-Canadian" policy that constrains us with NATO ammunition, I would be happy to choose a new range of SA & MG ammunitions that give us greater capability over the current range of SA & MG ammunition which we can lend out but are never allowed to borrow.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Everything I have read about cased ammo seems interesting. I am betting if the brits go ahead and succeed with 40mm CTWS than maybe more nations in NATo will follow.

The French have been in co-development of the 40mm CTWS, so I'd bet that they'd be second to the UK to adopt it if it works out.

 

[SeanNewman]

Kevin,

Yes it is true that we don't use the Rolls Royce of ammunition, but as you know anything with an IVI stamp on it is pretty damned good for general Infantry use.  Certainly the Cadillac of bulk ammunition, anyway.

IMO (and we've discussed this before), that money is far better spent on more days on the range and more marksmanship training than giving a soldier more expensive ammo and having him fire one PWT per year, but I agree that there are some people who could certainly benefit from a closer-to-match and truer flight round.

 

[vonGarvin]

IMO (and we've discussed this before), that money is far better spent on more days on the range and more marksmanship training than giving a soldier more expensive ammo and having him fire one PWT per year, but I agree that there are some people who could certainly benefit from a closer-to-match and truer flight round.

Very good point.  Even though we may have a cadillac, we need the training to get the most out of it. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Very good point.  Even though we may have a cadillac, we need the training to get the most out of it.

helllooooo... I'm right here  ;D

 

[KevinB]

Kevin,

Yes it is true that we don't use the Rolls Royce of ammunition, but as you know anything with an IVI stamp on it is pretty damned good for general Infantry use.  Certainly the Cadillac of bulk ammunition, anyway.

IMO (and we've discussed this before), that money is far better spent on more days on the range and more marksmanship training than giving a soldier more expensive ammo and having him fire one PWT per year, but I agree that there are some people who could certainly benefit from a closer-to-match and truer flight round.

It seems my comment was deleted (the truth being the first victim in war as it seems to be...)

I agree IVI is accurate ball ammo.

My point was that is more effetive ammo was given by an ally in a warzone, it is stupid not to allow its use, especially when that ammo us used elsewhere in the CF...

I fully agree that only hits count, and I would rather see soldiers shooting 10x the number of C77 rounds as opposed to Mk262 or 70gr BrownTip - however my point above was if that ammo was given its foolish to ignore.


I still think a 7mm CTA round would be the bees knees for a Individual Combat Carbine and LMG.
'

 

[SeanNewman]

I still think a 7mm CTA round would be the bees knees for a Individual Combat Carbine and LMG.

And that's the crux of the matter right there, because we don't work at individual level.

If we were 2,800 individuals running around, I would absolutely agree with you that something resembling that rifle would be the best thing to equip everyone with.

However, as simulations and real-time combat have proven, you can do a lot more killing of the enemy with a mix of overlapping capabilities than you can with a standard rifle one-size-fits-all.

Don't get me wrong though, if I were all by myself roaming around in any combat zone in the world I would certainly choose to carry something very similar to a KAC battle rifle  :skull:

 

[Michael OLeary]

It seems my comment was deleted (the truth being the first victim in war as it seems to be...)'

There is no evidence of a deleted post in your recent posting history (and, as staff, I can see deleted posts if they exist).

 

[KevinB]

There is no evidence of a deleted post in your recent posting history (and, as staff, I can see deleted posts if they exist).

I am a dumbass, I was posting on my laptop and work computer - and the message did not post on the laptop.  I was sure I had written a large diatribe - but while I wrote it, I forgot to hit post.

US Army ammo that the CF took then forbid use of.
So I found a use for it working with the US Government

 

[SeanNewman]

Warning!

Avert your eyes regular Army soldiers!

You are not allowed to look at the photo that has just been posted!

 

[Illegio]

Too late; mine eyes are forever stained with the image of verboten ammo which I must now, above all other things, possess.

...

Because forbidden things are cool.  8)

 

[McG]

Warning!

Avert your eyes regular Army soldiers!

You are not allowed to look at the photo that has just been posted!

It's okay.  It is perfectly okay to look & envy, but don't touch it on your screen.  ;D

I still think a 7mm CTA round would be the bees knees for a Individual Combat Carbine and LMG.

I have wondered about exactly such a round myself.  I know that post WW II, the UK identified a 7 mm ammunition as suitable for controled automatic fire from the shoulder  ... but I don't know anything about the ballistics of that round & there may have been unaceptable (by today's standard) comprimises in projectile mass or muzzle velocity.

Is there merit to different calibers for rifle & carbine to LMG?  There is a certain comfort in knowing that ammunition the supply sysem pushes for one weapon can be converted into use for the other, but if this is never actually done ...

6 mm CTA for assault rifle/carbine and 7 mm for LMG?

 

[SeanNewman]

There is an entire spectrum of different ammos and calibres between the NATO 5.56 and 7.62.

They all have their pros and cons.  The biggest con being that we are NATO and 6, 6.5, 6.8, 7mm are not.

For the relatively small benefit of having everyone in the platoon using the same ammo, IMO it is not worth it because you are limiting the accuracy of your soldiers on rapid rate and limiting the power of your GPMGs.

You will hear some brochure talk about X ammo actually being able to outperform 5.56 or 7.62 at certain ranges, but we chose the ammo we did for a reason: it was the best over the most conditions.

 

[KevinB]

Your mistaking the weight savings of the CTA ammo, and the abilties of modern muzzle brakes and suppressors...

Of course I want to smash my face in sometimes listening to DARPA programs - but CTA is a worthwhile improvement IMHO.

 

[SeanNewman]

We're a giant green monster, give us time to adapt!  We're just finally getting frang training ammo in the Reg Force.

You're preaching to the converted that some newer cool stuff exists, but I don't think any of that is worth SFA without NATO/USA making a choice in that direction first.

Until Uncle Sam abandons 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, I can not for the life of me see us doing it.