Future soldier technology (modified thread)

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/biggest-change-for-infantry-since-wwii-xm25/?utm_campaign=Breaking+Defense+Daily+Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=26577320&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8oYG8t_on9KsvGZOwoBP5azdnH8J9qCC8odY6QKjfreBE4j7ImkhM_A69mjLf6UUq-cCfudqdTDGCL4m--RZKxM26xIQ&_hsmi=26577320

XM-25 enters LRIP in FY2017
 
Once a system enters production (even LRIP) does it lose its' "X" designation? I didn't see any news releases from Orbital ATK on their website about this. Is H&K the subcontractor on the actual gun? The sight/ballistic computer module is from L-3 Brashear.
 
fredymac said:
Once a system enters production (even LRIP) does it lose its' "X" designation? I didn't see any news releases from Orbital ATK on their website about this. Is H&K the subcontractor on the actual gun? The sight/ballistic computer module is from L-3 Brashear.
Click to expand...
Yeah the basic weapon is H&K, the sight is L-3, the ammunition is Orbital ATK. Orbital ATK is also the lead on the full "XM-25 weapon system."
 
http://kitup.military.com/2016/02/army-says-weapons-treated-with-permanement-lube-will-eliminate-clp.html
 
Regarding the TRW rifle, from a couple of older threads:

cluttonfred said:
I guess I should have clarified that I am interested in "design for cheapness" and "design for simplicity" like the Hillberg shotgun, the Liberator pistol or the Sten gun, not just cheap and dirty copies of other, wise standard firearms.

Here's another one, the TRW low maintenance rifle, also intended as a easier to use weapon for insurgents that didn't require the meticulous care and feeding of the M16 back then (or the M4 carbine today).

trw_lmr2.jpg


TRW LMR on world.guns.ru

Anyone know of anything else more along those lines?
Click to expand...

Graham1973 said:
Grey Havoc said:
A few links relating to the TRW Low Maintenance Rifle:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/trw-lmr-e.html
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/trw-low-maintenance-rifle/
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/low-maintenance-rifle-photos/
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm rather surprised that the US Army chose a company more associated with the Space Race and satellites to design firearms, that said it would appear to that TRW got the design right and I'm surprised that no enterprising small arms manufacturer has seen fit to revive the design.

Anyone tried an FOI request to see if more could be dug up about the decision making process behind this one?
Click to expand...
 
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR779.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=rand_social

RAND report Special Operations of the future
 
http://www.janes.com/article/58501/uk-royal-marine-unit-ditches-the-sa80-for-colt-c8
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.janes.com/article/58501/uk-royal-marine-unit-ditches-the-sa80-for-colt-c8
Click to expand...

The logic behind the move was because the L119 has "reduced ricochet, limited collateral damage" features. Both the L119 and L85A2 are chambered in the NATO-standard 5.56x45 mm round, indicating that 43 Commando will be using a low-velocity round for its L119s.
Click to expand...

Short-range, lower velocity rounds. Not the role the L85 was originally designed for.
 
Probably shooting the Reduced Ricochet Low Penetration round developed for USSOCOM. It's copper and polymer cored -- basically a very accurate frangible round -- which makes it ideal for troops doing nuclear weapons security and shipboard operations. The L85 supposedly isn't very reliable with anything that isn't Radway Green spec so adopting fancy new ammo means you need a new rifle to go with it.
 
TomS said:
Probably shooting the Reduced Ricochet Low Penetration round developed for USSOCOM. It's copper and polymer cored -- basically a very accurate frangible round -- which makes it ideal for troops doing nuclear weapons security and shipboard operations. The L85 supposedly isn't very reliable with anything that isn't Radway Green spec so adopting fancy new ammo means you need a new rifle to go with it.
Click to expand...

Concur. Radway Green actually makes two flavours of 5.56mm NATO ball with different propellants: one optimised for SA80, the other for international sales (plus UK special forces using AR-15s).
 
Updated video from Textron Systems on their LSAT SAW. Video mentions TRL 7 which means the only thing left is a final design that is combat demonstrated. Given the highly desired weight reduction I would guess money is the main impediment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL6pPsEJ6GA
 
Money is the largest impediment but there are others. There's more to convincing the Army and Marine Corps weapons buyers that this technology is ready for prime time than just a TRL number, there's likely going to be rather exhaustive testing for a number of years. There's also still work to be done on determining what size bullets to buy. Do we apply that 40% weight reduction directly to the current 5.56mm round, or do we take advantage of that 40% weight reduction to field a larger bullet with superior ballistics? Or do we double-down on weight reduction and field an even more compact bullet like those less-than-4 grain 5.45x39 Russian rounds?
 
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/pentagon-egg-freezing-military-women-combat?utm_source=mbfb
 
Nothing much has happened regarding 5.56mm LSAT over the last couple of years. Instead, attention has switched to larger calibres, with 7.62mm having been tested.

At presentations last year Textron (the lead company for LSAT - now renamed CT for Cased Telescoped) reported three contracts they had been given for CT work: one to develop an LMG in 7.62mm; secondly to carry out research to determine the optimum calibre for future use; thirdly to develop a carbine in the optimum calibre. That optimum calibre turned out to be 6.5mm (surprise, surprise!). I am looking forward to learning of progress at the NDIA meeting in late April.

In the meantime, MAC LLC continues with their development of lightweight polymer/metal cartridge cases for conventional ammo. The MK323 .50 cal shows an overall weight reduction of 23% and is service-ready. The latest effort is aluminium/polymer cases for .338 Norma Magnum (presumably for GD's LWMMG) which should result in 30-35% saving. I can see this kind of development undermining the case for LSAT.
 
LSAT isn't just light ammo. As the name implies (Lightweight Small Arms), the gun itself is 40-50 percent lighter. Some of that is due to abandoning the rotating bolt and using the pivot feed mechanism seen in the video.
 
That's true, but in a machine gun the ammo weight is critical: for instance, an M240 weighs around the same as 400 rounds of linked ammo for it.
 
Tony Williams said:
Nothing much has happened regarding 5.56mm LSAT over the last couple of years. Instead, attention has switched to larger calibres, with 7.62mm having been tested.

At presentations last year Textron (the lead company for LSAT - now renamed CT for Cased Telescoped) reported three contracts they had been given for CT work: one to develop an LMG in 7.62mm; secondly to carry out research to determine the optimum calibre for future use; thirdly to develop a carbine in the optimum calibre. That optimum calibre turned out to be 6.5mm (surprise, surprise!). I am looking forward to learning of progress at the NDIA meeting in late April.

In the meantime, MAC LLC continues with their development of lightweight polymer/metal cartridge cases for conventional ammo. The MK323 .50 cal shows an overall weight reduction of 23% and is service-ready. The latest effort is aluminium/polymer cases for .338 Norma Magnum (presumably for GD's LWMMG) which should result in 30-35% saving. I can see this kind of development undermining the case for LSAT.
Click to expand...
Maybe Textron should look in to developing a CT .50 cal competitor to LWMMG as that GD capability is difficult to argue against --IMHO. Costly and time consuming admittedly.
 
Polymer CT with the polymer links from the LSAT work applies double for LMG soldiers using the Ironman backpack ammo canister.
 
Full ballistic helmet can Stormtroopers be far behind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejVPBkQpSKI
 
So, three questions.

1. What if a bullet strikes between the plates? What level protection does it provide then?
2. What happens if a bullet strikes a bolt/screw head? What happens to the bolt/screw body?
3. What does wearing this do to your situational awareness level? How much sound does it block out? How does it affect peripheral vision?
 
I think they lost me at "tactical Mohawk."
 
Tony Williams said:
ARES developed the .50 TAMG decades ago, and followed this up with the TARG: http://www.aresinc.net/engineering.html

HMGexp.jpg


12.7mm Hughes Lockless (sectioned, to show telescoped layout), .50 ARES TARG (telescoped, plastic case: this project was recently revived), .50 TROUND (for open-chamber gun), 12.7x99 (for scale)
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting Tony. Have one of your books so am familiar.
 
http://taskandpurpose.com/cyber-rifle-dirt-cheap-easy-make-happy-drone-hunting/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tp-today
 
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/01/army-picks-heckler-koch-sniper-rifle-replace-m110/82526646/
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/01/army-picks-heckler-koch-sniper-rifle-replace-m110/82526646/
Click to expand...

Oh dear, where is Larry Correia when you need him most? ;)

http://monsterhunternation.com/2007/10/09/hk-because-you-suck-and-we-hate-you/
 
The RUMINT running around about this isn't great, indications that Knights was discarded for reasons other than the performance of their product.
 
http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/will-this-weapon-change-infantry-warfare-forever/
 
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/10/what-is-squad-x-and-how-much-will-it-change-the-u-s-army/
 
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/marine-corps-braces-information-warfare-revolution/
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/robot-brains-where-you-want-em-raytheon-on-autonomy/
 
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/us-army-modernizing-and-upgradeing.html
 
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/should-america-build-smaller-more-lethal-us-army-15907
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/should-america-build-smaller-more-lethal-us-army-15907
Click to expand...

The problem with smaller armies is that it increasingly looks like inviting defeat in detail, at the very least.
 
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-ground-forces-urgent-need-modernization-15874
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2016/May/Pages/SpecialOpsIronManSuitonTrackfor2018.aspx
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom