Path:
spln!rex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!newsfeed.us.prserv.net!prserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamfinder.gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!a5e31630!not-for-mail
From:
"N9NWO"
Newsgroups: alt.military,misc.survivalism
Followup-To: alt.military, misc.survivalism, us.military.army
References:
<3G2c8.4156$S01.263294@sccrnsc02>
Subject: Re: Future Soldier
Lines: 188
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Message-ID:
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 02:47:13 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.41.243.227
X-Complaints-To: business-support@verizon.com
X-Trace:
nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1014605233 4.41.243.227 (Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:47:13 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:47:13 EST
Xref: spln alt.military:33143 misc.survivalism:435413
It looks like the National Command Authority
wants to jump over to the next generation of
equipment, and soon.
We really need to think about where we are heading
and how to minimize the number of systems in order
to mobilize quickly (war is more of an logistical exercise
than it is about fighting). Lets look at some systems.
Rifle
Currently we are using the M16A2 and the M4
carbine. And we are seeing more units transition
to the carbine daily. With urban warfare becoming
on of the main focus of future warfare, the M4 makes
more sense.
One interesting point. FN now has a big contract to
manufacture replacement M16A2 and M4 weapons.
As well, they manufacture the M249 and M240B/G.
FN tried to push the F90 PDW and failed. The 5.7 mm
round had less power than the 5.56x45mm. Just too
much of a jump.
FN has recently produced the F2000 bullpup which
has features of the F90 but fires the 5.56x45mm rounds.
It is a systems approach to the weapon and has many
OICW features, in fact they may have developed a good
working product for the OICW project.
Articles about the F2000
http://www.gunsworld.com/gun_ar/fn_f2000_us.htm
http://www.ets-news.com/herstal.htm
http://www.fnmfg.com/
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/fwframeset.html
One point that is being made in many articles is that
the .22 caliber rounds may not be enough for fighting
in urban environments. The Russians, after the Chechen
problem, are rethinking the 5.45 mm round in favor of a 6mm
round based on that cartridge. The Chinese already
have moved to a 5.7x42 mm round based on the old
7.62x39mm round for their new bullpup. Even the
FN F90 PDW was 5.7 mm but had too short a case
to be effective.
One suggestion was that we convert our 5.56x45 mm
weapons to 6x45mm (based on a necked up version
of the S109 round) with a 77gn steel core bullet. Thus
all we would need to do is retrofit our weapons with a
barrel change.
Personal Defense Weapons
Currently we have three weapons: the M9
and M11 in 9mm and the mk 23 in .45 ACP.
Three different weapons with a totally separate
part system and magazines.
There have been comments that the Special Operations
folks, especially the Navy, have been less than happy
with the mk 23. By the time the silencer and other
device are added, the weapon is nearly as big as an
MP5.
What comments I am hearing suggest that the Army
and Marines are looking to have a complete change
with respect to these systems. For one thing, a move
to the .40 S&W round as it can perform like a .45
(subsonic) when loaded with a 180 gn bullet (under
800 ft/sec) yet has 9mm performance when loaded
between 135 and 165 gn. (over 1300 ft/sec). This is
one reason that a large majority of US police departments
have switched to this round. And a simple barrel
change allows usage of the .357 Sig round in the
same gun. Our allies in Europe are also thinking
going to this round as the 9mm is proving to be too
light.
What is being proposed is a three gun system. A
main duty handgun, a compact version and a SMG.
One of the main requirements is that the SMG and
the compact be able to use the magazine from the
duty gun. At the moment only Beretta and H&K
have weapons in all three categories. And both
companies make a handgun with safeties which
Sig-Sauer, Walther, Glock and others do not (most
have a decocking mechanism, not a safety).
Duty gun barrel 4 to 5 inches, with threaded barrel for silencer.
Compact barrel 3 to 4 inches
All three weapons need to have
a mounting rail to attach lights
and other devices.
H&K USP and UMP
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/umpframeset.html
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/civilian/uspframeset.html
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/civilian/uspframeset.html
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/civilian/uspCframeset.html
Beretta
http://www.berettausa.com/guns/pistols/92_96vertec/index.html
http://www.beretta.com/from_usa_com.asp?section=ps&segment=difesa&Disc
ipline=Medium%20size
http://www.berettadefence.com/INGLESE/default_tabella_semiautomatiche.
htm
http://www.berettadefence.com/INGLESE/default_tabella_pistola_mitragli
atrice_PM_12_S2.htm
http://www.berettadefence.com/INGLESE/default_tabella_militari70_90.ht
m
Machine guns
Currently we have the M249, the M240B/G
and the mk 19 automatic grenade launcher.
There are those who question whether we need
a medium MG such as the M240 as the SAW
does most of the light MG roles and the mk 19
is better at a heavy/medium role (mounted on
tripod or vehicle). My guess is that we will hold
onto the M240 for sometime but it does create a
problem of more spare parts and ammo that has
to be transported.
http://www.fnmfg.com/
I also assume that we will keep the M2 .50 cal.
in the system for awhile longer.
Heavy weapons
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/index.html
In urban warfare, as we have seen with the
Chechen problem, the RPG-7 type weapon
becomes a mobile artillery piece. Mortars
may have use but have big limits. Most of the
fighting is done too close for that type of support.
We need to think about buying the Bofors 84mm
recoilless rifle for use in regular rifle squads.
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/carlgustav.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m3-maws.htm
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001armaments/burnhardt.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m3-maws.htm
The Marines also use the SMAW but I think that the
Bofors 84mm is a better system.
We seem to have settled on the 60 mm and
120 mm mortars.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/indirect.htm
It looks like artillery is centered around the
155mm and the 105mm. The Naval was talking
about converting to the 155mm from the 5 inch
gun (127mm) but have recently decided to upgrade
to the 5 in/62 cal. guns for ships that have them.
The real killer in logistics is the 20/25/30mm rounds
for aircraft, ship defense and anti aircraft. Currently
the 20mm is used by most aircraft and by the ship
defense systems (Phalanx). The Army uses the 25mm
Bushmaster on the Bradley. And the Navy has recently
put Bushmaster 25mm guns on certain ships for defense
against light water craft (see the Naval homepage and
look at the LHA and such craft).
The Harrier has used the 25mm, the A-10 used a 30 mm
and the new JSF is scheduled to use a 27mm. What is
needed is a common round for all these systems.
http://www.periscope1.com/demo/weapons/artguns/cmbtveh/w0003600.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/index.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/index.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/index.html
And of course the military across the board is looking
at replacing systems just as the JSF is to replace the
Harrier, F16, F18 and A10.