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

Another NGWS Fail

Okay so rather than start a new thread, I figured I would just continue in this for all of the issues with the Next Gen Squad Weapons Program for @PrairieFella and others interest.

My main issue with this program is that it upended the entire rational of Requirements, as there has never been a single requirement raised to justify the program, nor any doctrine shift to justify a requirement.

It came out of poorly interpreted Afghanistan data - as well as a perceived need to overmatch opponents in a small arms setting in a LSCO.
The idea a squad needs to overmatch a Platoon Support Weapon (the PKM in 7.62x54R) is a bad take at the best, and a fools errand.
Secondly the were fears created that the Chinese Body Armor wouldn't be defeated by 7.62x51 or 5.56mmx45 NATO ammunition.
No one stopped to look at the testing that showed that M993 and M995 AP ammo would defeat those plates at reasonable engagement distances - and some other folks also cooked the books on what the armor level was on Chinese Plates as well.

Years ago when at KAC, I had built some .260 Remington, 6.5 Creed, and 7-08 SR-25 uppers for a test. At the time .260 Rem was chosen as a stop gap system - mainly as at the time the ammo was more developed for mid range (500-1000m) shooting.

Joint Small Arms Program had been conducting studies for a while on what the optimal cartridge was, in an attempt to get a shootable longer range system that also had terminal performance improvements - and 6.5 won JSAP had been testing the CaseTelescoping Ammo (CTA) systems in 5.56mm then 7.62mm to see apples to apples across from the conventional cartridge systems.

General Miller when the FORSCOM Commander had issued a requirement for a 7.62mm Select Fire Carbine as an Interim Battle Rifle - it was fortunately cancelled when he shot the JSAP 7.62 CTA Machine Gun - but it shoved him into the belief that one needed a new cartridge and weapons systems.

SOCOM had adopted the 6.5 Creedmore cartridge as a higher efficiency medium round to use in place of 7.62x51mm NATO. As it is a parent 7.62x51 casing, it fit in magazines and M37 link - and (theoretically) just required a barrel change to use in most systems.

The US Army then decided that the projectile they wanted "couldn't be done" in a 6.5 Creedmore and settled on a 6.8mm projectile -- and provided minimum ammunition requirements and the Next Generation Squad Weapons was born.
Currently named NGSW-R (Rifle) XM-7, and NGSW-AR (Automatic Rifle) XM-250
Sig ended winning the downselect with a 6.8x51 cartridge and their two offerings.
No one seems to do any reality testing with the pressure that was being demanded in the systems to get the projectile to the desire velocity - so one ended up with 85-110k PSI chamber pressures.

Anyway after a slew of defects the Army started delivering the weapons to the National Guard (hiding them away one might think).

I could go on a lot more - but it was a stupid program that didn't understand the reality of the battlefield.
 
Looks back at history

Reviews SCHV

Reviews Project SALVO

Reviews EM2 history

Reviews T44 and T48 history

Reviews 60+ year development of the Stoner DI system

Um.

Why.....?

Does no-one in small arms look back at the old Ezell books and see what's been tried already before wasting megabucks on things?

I was at the Small Arms Symposium in Gagetown a few years ago, and there were DRDC folks proudly presenting their plans and test results for a modular bullpup style rifle for the CAF. I spoke with one of the designers afterwards and asked if he'd ever heard of the Ross Rifle. He hadn't.

I suggested he do some homework on the last time Canada made it's on home-designed service rifle, and see how that all worked out.

Hopefully he learned....
 
Okay so rather than start a new thread, I figured I would just continue in this for all of the issues with the Next Gen Squad Weapons Program for @PrairieFella and others interest.

My main issue with this program is that it upended the entire rational of Requirements, as there has never been a single requirement raised to justify the program, nor any doctrine shift to justify a requirement.

It came out of poorly interpreted Afghanistan data - as well as a perceived need to overmatch opponents in a small arms setting in a LSCO.
The idea a squad needs to overmatch a Platoon Support Weapon (the PKM in 7.62x54R) is a bad take at the best, and a fools errand.
Secondly the were fears created that the Chinese Body Armor wouldn't be defeated by 7.62x51 or 5.56mmx45 NATO ammunition.
No one stopped to look at the testing that showed that M993 and M995 AP ammo would defeat those plates at reasonable engagement distances - and some other folks also cooked the books on what the armor level was on Chinese Plates as well.

Years ago when at KAC, I had built some .260 Remington, 6.5 Creed, and 7-08 SR-25 uppers for a test. At the time .260 Rem was chosen as a stop gap system - mainly as at the time the ammo was more developed for mid range (500-1000m) shooting.

Joint Small Arms Program had been conducting studies for a while on what the optimal cartridge was, in an attempt to get a shootable longer range system that also had terminal performance improvements - and 6.5 won JSAP had been testing the CaseTelescoping Ammo (CTA) systems in 5.56mm then 7.62mm to see apples to apples across from the conventional cartridge systems.

General Miller when the FORSCOM Commander had issued a requirement for a 7.62mm Select Fire Carbine as an Interim Battle Rifle - it was fortunately cancelled when he shot the JSAP 7.62 CTA Machine Gun - but it shoved him into the belief that one needed a new cartridge and weapons systems.

SOCOM had adopted the 6.5 Creedmore cartridge as a higher efficiency medium round to use in place of 7.62x51mm NATO. As it is a parent 7.62x51 casing, it fit in magazines and M37 link - and (theoretically) just required a barrel change to use in most systems.

The US Army then decided that the projectile they wanted "couldn't be done" in a 6.5 Creedmore and settled on a 6.8mm projectile -- and provided minimum ammunition requirements and the Next Generation Squad Weapons was born.
Currently named NGSW-R (Rifle) XM-7, and NGSW-AR (Automatic Rifle) XM-250
Sig ended winning the downselect with a 6.8x51 cartridge and their two offerings.
No one seems to do any reality testing with the pressure that was being demanded in the systems to get the projectile to the desire velocity - so one ended up with 85-110k PSI chamber pressures.

Anyway after a slew of defects the Army started delivering the weapons to the National Guard (hiding them away one might think).

I could go on a lot more - but it was a stupid program that didn't understand the reality of the battlefield.

:)

Toronto Blue Jays Baseball GIF by MLB
 
Looks back at history

Reviews SCHV

Reviews Project SALVO

Reviews EM2 history

Reviews T44 and T48 history

Reviews 60+ year development of the Stoner DI system
You forgot the OICW, then the XM-8 debacles
Um.

Why.....?

Does no-one in small arms look back at the old Ezell books and see what's been tried already before wasting megabucks on things?

I was at the Small Arms Symposium in Gagetown a few years ago, and there were DRDC folks proudly presenting their plans and test results for a modular bullpup style rifle for the CAF. I spoke with one of the designers afterwards and asked if he'd ever heard of the Ross Rifle. He hadn't.

I suggested he do some homework on the last time Canada made it's on home-designed service rifle, and see how that all worked out.

Hopefully he learned....
The major issue is missing the forrest from the trees aspect of what performance is needed in terms of accuracy and lethality and to what ranges are those needed at certain levels in a LSCO.

The Army seems to be willfully ignoring their own testing and doctrine.
1) M4A1 testing has shown that the SHOOTER is the weakest part of the Weapon/Ammo/Optic/User combo
2) US Army shooting goes to 300m with the individual weapon - so why is a 1,200m weapon being even talked about
 
Nevermind the absolute boondoggle the 6.8 will be for logistics.
We have almost 1B in parts for the M4A1's...

It is another stupid boondoggle - but I am hoping that Musk's Idiocy will actually kill this one quickly -- probably not, it will hamstring us for years, so Putin will probably tell Trump to keep it.
 
We have almost 1B in parts for the M4A1's...

It is another stupid boondoggle - but I am hoping that Musk's Idiocy will actually kill this one quickly -- probably not, it will hamstring us for years, so Putin will probably tell Trump to keep it.
As an aside, what's the mood within the defence community in the States, are you hearing from peers/colleagues what the mood is?
 
We have almost 1B in parts for the M4A1's...

It is another stupid boondoggle - but I am hoping that Musk's Idiocy will actually kill this one quickly -- probably not, it will hamstring us for years, so Putin will probably tell Trump to keep it.
Another good indicator is to check which Congressional District the weapons will be built in.
 
Kevin,

I don't have the Collectors Grade books on the OICW and XM8 on my shelf.

I do have a copy of the Ross Story and the others though.

The SPIW tale is a fascinating one. (That we should absolutely not follow.)

NS
 
Color me shocked Soldiers Give the Army's New Rifle Optic Low Ratings

Now last year it was announced that there would be only 1 of these /squad due to costs. It was a TRL3 item that was passed off as TLR7 several years ago so…

Choose your warrior! Who wins in a gunfight?

Dude with the laser range finder, built-in windage calculator, compass..... overengineered piece of hot garbage!

1740576680626.jpeg


....... or ........

Dude with a Maglight!

1740576834690.png
 
Speaking of 'fail' ;)

British army is 'laughing stock' of NATO - because outdated rifles 'wouldn't be able to kill Russian or Chinese soldiers'​


The British army is said to be the 'laughing stock' of NATO because its outdated rifles wouldn't be able to kill Russian or Chinese soldiers in advanced body armour.

The army still uses the L115A3 'sniper' rifle, while other armed forces had updated to the same company's AX models, which are lighter and enable soldiers to see further in the distance, according to a serving senior officer.

'The Europeans used to love all of our kit but now laugh at it,' the officer told the Times.

They said that snipers from a NATO ally in eastern Europe was 'mind blown' by the UK still using the old rifles.

About 500 snipers in the British army have a L115A3 rifle and they feel underfunded and neglected, according to the officer, who added that the UK had 'fallen far behind the curve as far as capability goes'.

Units other than snipers face similar issues. The SA-80 standard infantry rifle, which has been used by British soldiers for four decades, has reportedly not changed much since the 1980s.

The SA-80 uses a 5.56mm round, which is the NATO standard, and the rifle was designed to pierce through old Russian helmets that are not in usage anymore, a second source said, adding that the rifle was 'heavy and clunky'.

They also said the SA-80 - of which 150,000 are believed to be currently in service - was one of the 'least updated' rifles that wasn't even made by others anymore.

 
Holy shit that is a terribly written article.
A rifle lets you see further?
SA80 isn't great, but it was updated twice in the past 20 years.
The SA80, "wasn't even made by others anymore.". What does that mean?

Sorry D&B, I'm dumber for reading that article.
 
Back
Top