• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

As some may have guessed Dissident dropped in to see KAC this week.
Dude I can't beleive you dont beleive my sales pitch ;)

  LSAT is based on the Stoner LMG framework -- the biggest crime I beleive is that the US Army refuses to go futher than briefings on LSAT and CTA.


 
Kevin, I trust what you say more than what Moses brought down on stone tablets. :D

I was trying to avoid paraphrasing you because I drank from the fire hose Saturday and did not want to misquote you.

Sure you are probably a bit biased, but what you told me convinced me that the Stoner LMG should be the replacement in the medium term for the C9 and I don't even think you were really trying to convince me.
 
KAC LMG is basically a 10lb controllable SAW, Dissident saw the weight difference between the Mk46 in my office and that (about 6lbs)
  Given the Mk46 bbl is 1lbs lighter than the LMG...

Reasons for the controllability is the LMG works on run out, no carrier impact on the weapon, so in addition to decreased recoil forces the weapon lifespan is proglonged exponentially.


  With CTA ammo systems we are at a chicken and the egg.  I am obviously a firm beleiver, however the Army needs to bite, or its all for naught.

Currently the Army is M855A1 focuses and there really is a limit into what improvements can be done in a conventional brass cased weapon system. 


Most SAW/LMG's in NATO inventories are reaching the end of their lifespan, so a decision needs to be made fast as to whether we will step beyond for the next LMG and Carbine, or continue with brass cased ammuntion systems.


IF we are constrained by the 5.56mm round, then to me the Stoner LMG is a no brainer.



 
I was fondling a plastic/brass hybrid 5.56 case last week. Apparently the plastic case is injection molded with the bullet. then the powder is added and the brass portion (approx 7mm long) and the base with primer snaps onto the plastic end. this ensures that the case expands and seals the chamber long enough for regular weapons to function and gives something for the extractor to grab. My friend and I wondered if the polymer was able to withstand sitting in a hot chamber? Another issue would be quality control of ammo.
There is a weight saving, against an all brass case, but not sure if it could not be achieved as easily with other metals as well.
 
The hybrid Poly/Brass casings have issues in they deform at a much greater rate than brass casings, the reason why CTA ammuntion is made in the shape that it is, is to increase the strenght and the reliability in feeding and extracting.

 
CTA sounds almost like a replay of the EM-2. The Brits analysed data from WWII, decided that current cartridges didn't quite come up to snuff and designed a .280 "ideal" cartridge and the EM-2 weapons system to go with it.

The EM-2 was a 50's era weapon with similar functionality to the Styer AUG; with different barrels it was a PDW, assault rifle and support weapon. It was actually taken into service and limited issue, but NATO politics intruded and the US position of using full sized Winchester 308/7.62X51 cartridges wan the day. Needless to say, the EM-2 could not be rechambered to take the much more powerful round and the weapon and concept died.

Even if one nation tried to adopt the CTA as their service standard, without a buy in by the United States the system would either die or be orphaned in the home nation. Think of the HK G-11 and its caseless 4.5mm rounds. Even a nation as large and wealthy as Germany could not go it alone (especially with other demands on the treasury).

Sad, really
 
Well, the CTA concept is out there - the Brits are in the midst of upgrading their Warrior IFVs with a 40mm CTA cannon, among other things. Perhaps the recalcitrance of the industry to adopt a new standard can be attacked from more than one angle. If LSAT demonstrates its efficacy at the small-arms level, and the CT 40 cannon is similarly proven to be a robust medium-caliber weapon, there may be more incentive to invest in a "proven" technology.
 
Are you sure the Brits are continuing with their Warrior upgrade program? In the last year they have had alot of drastic defence cuts being made as part of their strategic defence review and I wouldn't be surprised if the warrior 40mm CTA upgrade was ditched.
 
The contract for the upgrade has already been awarded, though. Nothing in the searches I've done indicates that the contract has been cancelled, and I suspect that it would cost more to cancel it than it would to see things through to the end.
 
Illegio said:
The contract for the upgrade has already been awarded, though. Nothing in the searches I've done indicates that the contract has been cancelled, and I suspect that it would cost more to cancel it than it would to see things through to the end.
The French were working on the same 40 mm CTA weapon with the Brits.  Do you know if they are still in?  If both those nations buy-in, then it would be a viable option for LAV upgrade or CCV.
 
Its not so much as an Industy buy in to CTA, as several firms have been working on it.

The biggest issue at this point is US Army resistance in some camps.  On the Ammunition side and some limited sides of the Small Arms Branch is has traction, however in the larger Echelons of the Small Arms Branch and the Pentagon, it seems to be ignored.

I know one company in partnership with AAI has offered to fund a CTA Family of weapons for development and testing,  but until anyone is willing to give it a serious look it will be relegated to small briefing footnotes.

Simply from a logistical footprint outlook it makes a great deal of sense, as well as soldier load issues.


I've drunk the CTA cool-aid however, so I'm not the most unbiased individual.

 
If you can believe Wikipedia on dates (and they are usually pretty credible on that kind of stuff IMO) then:

Fulminates 1800
Fulminating Powder 1807 (by a short sighted, duck hunting Scots Presbyterian minister)
Percussion Caps 1814-1822
First use of percussion caps to replace flints on Brown Bess 1842

20 to 40 years for the Bureaucrats to catch up with the Technology.

I hope you have a big jug of Koolaid Kevin.  You might get thirsty waiting.  :)

*On the other hand the concept has been around a while already.
 
My guess is the next round of NATO weapons will still be conventional case ammuntion.

 
I agree. Two primary benefits I see with brass cases:

They are a "solid coolant" that keeps powder combustion heat from directly contacting the chamber.

They are tough in all aspects: high-temperature resistant, physical-abuse-resistant, very-low-temperature tolerant (unlike many thermoplastics, which can become quite brittle).

And, well, proven.

But, new plastics are being invented. The resin that some carbon fibre parts are molded with can withstand 2000 degrees F, IIRC.
 
Polymer mix casings can be quite effective - and the push thru CTA flipper chamber keeps the chamber cooler than conventional designs.

The question is NATO open to new technologies.  Several entities are pushing for a larger than 5.56mm round, however the weight associated with larger rounds keep them from being a true replacement option.

 
KevinB said:
If I did issue it - you'd need to start punching out officers and NCO's that allready have troops ruining the muzzle crown by scraping it (worse I had one Weapons Tech SGT tell me it was the peel washer  ::) 

You strike a couple nerves with this comment. I have preached for 22 years that we over clean weapons. It drives me nuts. Also, as a Weapons Tech I am curious what Sgt in my trade can't tell the difference between the muzzle crown and the washers. Send me a PM, I would appreciate it.
 
KevinB said:
Polymer mix casings can be quite effective - and the push thru CTA flipper chamber keeps the chamber cooler than conventional designs.

The question is NATO open to new technologies.  Several entities are pushing for a larger than 5.56mm round, however the weight associated with larger rounds keep them from being a true replacement option.

Especially in the case of the squad automatic weapon, wouldn't more rounds of ammo being able to be carried be far more important than the "extra stopping power" or extra penetration or effective range of 7.62, or 6.8, or whatever? I figured volume of fire was the main selling point of the SAW, not being able to place rounds further downrange.

Anyone experience a disappointing lack of performance from the 5.56mm rounds in a squad weapon that can add some input here?
 
A sort of update on the LSAT, including some info on the "carbine", which uses a totally different action than the MG. The projected in service date is interesting....

http://world.guns.ru/machine/usa/lsat-e.html

The LSAT Lightweight Small Arms Technology program was initiated by US Army early in 2000s, as an attempt to significantly reduce combat load of the infantrymen, especially those carrying the Squad Automatic Weapons / light machine guns, such as M249 SAW. In around 2004 the ATK corporation was selected as a prime contractor to develop appropriate small arms system, which would necessarily include new, lighter ammunition and a gun (guns) to fire it. Initial intent was to develop a caseless ammunition (which provides maximum savings in the weight and size), with a fall-back option for polymer cased ammunition with telescoped design (in this design bullet is fully 'buried' inside the powder charge withing the simple cylindrical case). By the 2010, ATK sucessfully developed both caseless (CL) and  and cased telescoped (CT) ammo, and several prototype weapons to fire it. The CT ammunition and guns currently are most developed, and show average 41% weight and 13% volume reduction when compared to the standard 5.56x45 NATO ammunition. The caseless ammo shows somewhat better numbers, but it is also more expensive and, as of now, remains on earlier stages of development. Current plans are to deliver 8 LSAT machine guns and 100 000 rounds of CT ammunition to US Army by May 2011, for initial assessment. Additionally, ATK recently displayed the LSAT carbine, which fires same CT ammo from 4-row detachable box magazine, holding 42 rounds. The carbine is still in early development stage. According to the ATK presentations at NDIA 2010 symposium, the manufacturer is ready to scale the LSAT system up for more potent and promising calibers in 6.5 - 6.8mm range, but not until specifically asked to do so by the US Army. Current (mid-2010) documents suggest that it is possible to see first units equipped with LSAT small arms system by 2016.

The ammunition for LSAT weapons is made in the form of simple cylinder. Caseless (CL) ammunition is made from formed propellant, with bullet located inside and primer glued to the rear. Case telescoped (CT) ammunition uses cylindrical cases, made from plastic. Ammunition weights now 8.3gram (CT) and 6.3gram (CL) compared with 12.2 gram for 5.56mm M855.Plastic machine gun links weigh 0.5gram instead of 2.0 gram for steel. This results in combat load of 600 linked rounds weighting 9.4 kg with standard M855 ammo, and just 5.8 kg with CT and 4.6 kg with CL ammo. Ballistics of both CL and CT ammunition is similar to the 5.56mm M855, and similar bullets are used.

The LSAT machine gun uses gas operated action with gas piston, located below the barrel. It operates oscillating chamber, which swings sideways to eject spent case and load a fresh one, and then swings back in line with the barrel to fire the round. Feed is from specially designed disintegrating belts with plastic links. It has a quick-change barrel and fires from open bolt, in full automatic and semi-automatic modes. Basic design of the weapon remains the same for CT and CL versions, although special measures are taken to provide gas seal between barrel and chamber in caseless version of the gun.

The LSAT carbine uses same ammo, but the feed and moving chamber design are different. LSAT carbine is fed from high-capacity, 4-row box magazines, which are inserted from below the gun. Upon loading, the moving chamber is dropped down below the barrel, so the fresh case can be forced rearwards from magazine and into the chamber. This also forces the spent or misfired case to be pushed out of the chamber and then fall out of the gun. Once the round is fully chambered, action forces the vertically sliding chamber up and in line with the barrel, and the gun is fired.
 
A report on the M-25. As a squad/section level grenade launcher it is certainly a light support weapon. The interesting point in the rticle is the rangefinding/fuse setting technology is getting migrated to larger 40m grenades as well:

http://www.economist.com/node/21542716?frsc=dg|a

Magic bullets
Smart ammunition is about to make things a lot more dangerous for guerrillas fighting regular troops
Jan 14th 2012 | from the print edition

IN WARFARE, an outgunned force that manoeuvres to shoot from behind cover such as rocks or the rim of a ditch can often save itself from an otherwise nearly certain rout. That, at least, was the opinion of Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general whose treatise “On War” was the handbook of many 19th-century military men. And modern ones, too. Almost two centuries after Clausewitz committed his thoughts to print, underdog forces such as the Afghan Taliban continue to make deadly use of the art of concealment against technologically superior armies. But not, perhaps, for much longer. For a collaboration between ATK, an American firm, and Heckler & Koch, a German one, has come up with a rifle that negates the advantage of cover which Clausewitz described, by borrowing an idea from one of his contemporaries, Henry Shrapnel.

The XM25, as the new gun is known, weighs about 6kg (13lb) and fires a 25mm round. The trick is that instead of having to be aimed directly at the target, this round need only be aimed at a place in proximity to it. Once there, it explodes—just like Shrapnel’s original artillery shells—and the fragments kill the enemy. It knows when to explode because of a timed fuse. In Shrapnel’s shells this fuse was made of gunpowder. In the XM25 it is a small computer inside the bullet that monitors details of the projectile’s flight.


A handful of XM25s are now being tested in Afghanistan by the Americans. So far, they have been used on more than 200 occasions. Most of these fights ended quickly, and in America’s favour, according to Lieutenant-Colonel Shawn Lucas, who is in charge of the weapon’s field-testing programme. Indeed, the programme has been so successful that the army has ordered 36 more of the new rifles.

A new equaliser

Each rifle bullet is programmed, before it is fired, by a second computer in the rifle itself. To determine the distance to the target, the gunman shines a laser rangefinder attached to the rifle at whatever is shielding the enemy. If that enemy is in a ditch, a nearby object—a tree trunk behind or to the side of the ditch, perhaps—will do. Looking through the rifle’s telescopic sight, the gunman then estimates the distance from this object to the target. He presses a button near the trigger to add that value to (or subtract it from) the distance determined by the rangefinder.

When the round is fired, the internal computer counts the number of rotations it makes, to calculate the distance flown. The rifle’s muzzle velocity is 210 metres a second, which is the starting point for the calculation. When the computer calculates that the round has flown the requisite distance, it issues the instruction to detonate. The explosion creates a burst of shrapnel that is lethal within a radius of several metres (exact details are classified). And the whole process takes less than five seconds.

Just how the turn-counting fuse works is an even more closely guarded secret than the lethal radius—though judging by the number of failed attempts to hack into computers that might be expected to hold information about it, many people would dearly like to know. Certainly, the trick is not easy. An alternative design developed in South Korea, which clocks flight time rather than number of rotations, seems plagued by problems. Last year South Korea’s Agency of Defence Development halted production of trial versions of the K-11, as this rifle is called, and announced a redesign, following serious malfunctions.

The XM25, in contrast, appears to work well. It is accurate at ranges of up to 500 metres. That is almost as far as America’s main assault rifle, the M-16, can shoot conventional bullets with accuracy. More pertinently, it is nearly double the range of the AK-47, a rifle of Soviet design that is used by many insurgent groups. And according to Sergeant-Major Bernard McPherson, part of the XM25’s development programme in Virginia, it is receiving rave reviews from soldiers in the field.

It is also inspiring imitation. Though several European countries are planning to buy the XM25, some of them, including Germany, are working on weapons that operate in the same way, but fire 40mm rounds. Such bullets are easier (and less expensive) to make than 25mm rounds. But starting with a smaller design increases the usefulness of the technology. It is easier to enlarge components than to shrink them, so the XM25 bullet design could, without too much trouble, be made to fit ammunition intended for weapons with larger-bore barrels. ATK has already begun modifying the technology to fit in the shells fired by marine-corps artillery pieces, according to Jeff Janey, the firm’s vice-president of business development.

None of this is cheap. An XM25 with a thermal sight and a four-round magazine is reckoned by informed observers of the field to cost about $35,000. The bullets, which have to be made by hand at the moment, clock in at several hundred dollars each. But the price of a bullet could fall to as low as $25 when ATK switches to automated production. And even at its current price, both gun and ammunition compare favourably with alternative methods of dealing with dug-in gunmen.

The most reliable of these is an airstrike. But that is costly. Grenade launchers, mortars and conventional artillery are cheaper, but more likely than a single explosive bullet to cause collateral damage.

The upshot, then, is that though Clausewitz has had a good run, his advice in this regard could soon become redundant. In coming years, those who fight technologically advanced armies would be wise to note that ducking for cover—one of the oldest ploys in combat—will no longer offer the sanctuary it has in centuries past.
 
Back
Top