Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun

[REDinstaller]

Yes, I have. I hope they have made a hard enough plastic that is lighter than the brass casing. I just don't know how well the extended troop trials have gone. The article doesn't state any failures between rounds.

 

[KevinB]

The way CTA rounds are presented basically makes that highly unlikely (but everything is possible I suppose).

The CTA rounds I have are a thick polymer 'rimless'- on many designs they use a revolving chamber (which helps cooling) and empties are pushed forward when the new round is inserted, then the chamber rotates 180 and is fired etc.

CTA crew served/vehicle systems I have seen would require a rather extensive redesign of the LAV - they have been more optimized for RWS, or A/C mounting.


 

 

[REDinstaller]

I think the main focus of the CCV project was to go with a RWS system. The less heads poking through the roof the better was their mindset. I like to have my head out of a hatch though, don't have to worry so much about a dirty objective lens. Just my dirty mind. >

 

[KevinB]

I hear you.
I prefer to be out smelling and seeing.

  However from a crew protection standpoint - properly done RWS's can really be a lifesaver.

I think one of the biggest boons to a CTA LAV cannon would be increased ammo capability.

Imagine a 300rd primary bin, and 120 rd secondary, and a thousand round coax bin...

That said I am a foot guy, so my primary interest is to be able to field a 7.62mm NATO performance round (range and energy) in a 16" carbine that does not have a dramatic load weight increase over 5.56mm

The idea of the 7x46 Murray in a CTA round intruiges me.

I think a CTA system could be almost "clean gun' tech, in that it would be extremly low maintenance.

 

[REDinstaller]

What about breach tolerances? Would they not be too tight for a sandy enviorment?

 

[KevinB]

Outside my lane, however from the LSAT stuff I don't think so, and I would guess larger calibers would tend to be affected less due to the whole aspect ratio of crud to round.  :-\

 

[REDinstaller]

How is Knight planning to take advantage of this technology? With out releasing too much insider info.

 

[SeanNewman]

Alot of the arguments against a calibre conversion is the high cost of retooling industry and replacing weapons systems.  If there is a more effective intermediate calibre which could possibly replace both 5.56 and 7.62 wouldn't the LSAT program be the time and place to do so?

The core of the argument rests with the "green" army being made up of different but overlapping capabilities, which can do more than an average homogenized mass of people who all have the same kit.

There are very real pros to the 5.56 NATO caliber, and very real pros to the 7.62 caliber.  You've heard them all before (less weight vs stopping power, less recoil vs longer range, etc), but with a mixed caliber you begin to lose the benefits of both.

With an intermediate cal (6mm, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 7mm, whatever) you (usually*) lose for everything you gain.  For every riflemen you give some "oomph" to, you have now made him less accurate on rapid rate close up.  Likewise, you have taken away some "oomph" from the GPMGs.

*Note* There are some studies that show that even an intermediate round may surpass the joules produced by a 7.62 NATO round at some distances, but joules are not the only factor of lethality.

Now where that brings us on this thread is that it's not really worth it for the CF to replace our entire ball-based small arms arsenal when it's not really that broken, because even if we believed every word of the glossy manufacturers' catalogs the relatively small gain in some performance would not justify it.  And as per above, in a green environment you may even lose capability.  Yes, everyone would have the same round, but at our detriment.  And on that note, with incoming ammo/weapon types on the horizon, it's not the time anyway.

Think of this analogy:  If you're single, it may make the most sense to have a vehicle that is a bit of an all around vehicle, but as a family is it better to have two medium SUVs, or a small car and a large truck?  With the two SUVs you can't do anything as good as some of the other vehicles can.  You'll never have the good economy of the small car when you need it and you'll never have the utility of a huge pickup. 

 

[KevinB]

Dude - you need to get out more 

What If I have a 7.62mm gun, that can recoil not too much more than a 5.56mm gun, that in CQB the shooters can have as fast split times and good as if not better accuracy, plus kills out to 800m

Then imagine this capability in a lighter ammo


FYI that idiot Brit (Tony Williams)who is tilting at windmills with the 6.5 Grendel needs to do a little more research himself and not spout off factory crap. Per Advisison pretty much diesected his argument on that.

However all the Danish and Norwegian info seem to be pushing them back into 7.62mm for personal weapons and LMG's

*I which I would encourage anyone to challenge my comments, and demand I come up to Gagetown with a rifle to demo...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Same reasons to pass on the 6.8mm as the 6.5mm?

 

[SeanNewman]

...Then imagine this capability in a lighter ammo...

Well yes, of course, that's the whole thing right there (or half of it, anyway).  The other half being defining exactly what "not that much more recoil" actually is.

Yes, you and I as people involved with guns as the main effort of our work can confidently stand behind most weapon systems and own them as we fire them in terms of stance, but can some scrawny 18 year old who has grown up on video games still easily hit something on rapid rate with it?

I'm not saying it can't be done, of course, and in fact I would like nothing more than for it to be accomplished.

 

[REDinstaller]

Yes, you and I as people involved with guns as the main effort of our work can confidently stand behind most weapon systems and own them as we fire them in terms of stance, but can some scrawny 18 year old who has grown up on video games still easily hit something on rapid rate with it?

I'm not saying it can't be done, of course, and in fact I would like nothing more than for it to be accomplished.

Hence why we train on weapons, not just give them to troops willy nilly.

 

[SeanNewman]

Hence why we train on weapons, not just give them to troops willy nilly.

That's the sad part though, we don't really train with weapons all that often.

A civilian would probably be staggered if they found out how many days a year your average Infantry soldier fired live rounds.

 

[REDinstaller]

Once the current deployment cycle ends that could change for the troops benefit.

 

[McG]

Alot of the arguments against a calibre conversion is the high cost of retooling industry and replacing weapons systems.  If there is a more effective intermediate calibre which could possibly replace both 5.56 and 7.62 wouldn't the LSAT program be the time and place to do so?

The change from traditional ammunition to telescoped ammunition would be the most opportune time to introduce new calibers.  But, there would still be significant industrial inertia against such a move as many manufactures would seek to transfer their existing projectile line into the new CTA or CLA production runs.  At the same time …

The core of the argument rests with the "green" army being made up of different but overlapping capabilities, which can do more than an average homogenized mass of people who all have the same kit.

There are very real pros to the 5.56 NATO caliber, and very real pros to the 7.62 caliber.  You've heard them all before (less weight vs stopping power, less recoil vs longer range, etc), but with a mixed caliber you begin to lose the benefits of both.

With an intermediate cal (6mm, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 7mm, whatever) you (usually*) lose for everything you gain.  For every riflemen you give some "oomph" to, you have now made him less accurate on rapid rate close up.  Likewise, you have taken away some "oomph" from the GPMGs.

I agree that we should not be looking for a single common intermediate calibre for the infantry company.  However, each of our current small arm & machinegun bullets was arrived at in its own stovepiped development – there is more owed to legacy & historical weapons than to any conscious effort to optimise at the aggregate level.

If there ever is an appropriate time to do aggregate level capability review/redesign of this nature, that time would be prior to the implementation of a decision to switch to telescoped (or some other new) ammunition. 

As soon as one changes calibre, muzzle velocity or projectile mass; there will be performance trade-offs in range, terminal effects, ability to fire automatic from the shoulder, etc.  On some weapon systems (GPMG or HMG), we may decide it better to give-up some weight & space savings offered by CTA & CLA in order to increase terminal effects (larger calibre) or increase the rate of fire (requiring more rounds carried in the same space to achieve suppressive fire over an identical time frame).  Should we re-introduce an SMG?  Would we be better served with different ammunition for the LMG and Assault Rifle? What role do shotguns play?  Determining the impacts of various potential changes and measuring their effect at an aggregate Sect/Pl/Coy/BG level is more than any of us are going to do sitting at our keyboards.

Fortunately, SARP II should provide an opportunity to properly make such an assessment.

Maybe we are already at the “90% solution” or maybe (after determining the requirements and working to a solution from there) we could find that our current system of 9x19mm, 5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm, and 12.7x99mm would be better replaced by telescoped ammunition equivalent to “conventional cased” 6x30mm, 10x22mm, 6x47mm, 8x60mm, and 15x120mm. (You’ll note that I have not discussed projectile weight, propellant or such things – this example really is only to be illustrative).

 

[SeanNewman]

Fortunately, SARP II should provide an opportunity to properly make such an assessment.

Not sure if you have heard, but SARP2 is no more.  Well, not in one piece, anyway.  It was growing into such a large all-inclusive beast that the decision was made to break it up into three stages to make sure we could get the ball rolling on a few critical projects.

Still SARP2 in concept, just not by name.

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?".  It wouldn't matter if Colt Canada and IVI came up with the most advanced new weapon/ammo combo the world has even seen; I can't see us doing anything that the US doesn't do first.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Actually to be correct GENERAL DYNAMICS Ordnance and Tactical Systems – Canada bought out IVI years ago and make our SAA.  Yes IVI is still used because we are used to it.

 

[SeanNewman]

Yes IVI is still used because we are used to it.

Touchee, 2 points for you 

I have not yet seen a lot on the user side that wasn't still IVI, though.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I have not yet seen a lot on the user side that wasn't still IVI, though.

and you probably never will 

 

[REDinstaller]

Why change the base stamp when you own the company?