Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Army NGSW Competition

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    So far my money’s on Sig. The rifle’s design is closest to an M4 plus the LMG generally looks good.

    Textron could be good but on the surface looks over-engineered and seems to rely alot on electronics. Front line weapon systems should be as simple as possible.

    GD’s bullpup is a bullpup and the US military seems to dislike them in general so unless this specific platform manages to pull something magical out of its ass I just can’t see it going anywhere.

    The only issue with Sig is that apparently the US Army doesn’t like to monopolise and give out all its contracts to one source so Sig might struggle but I’m not sure how true that is.
    Ne Obliviscaris

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by Cassius View Post
      The belt fed variant will replace the SAW and the battle rifle is being touted as replacing the M4.
      OK so it IS touted as replacing M4.

      Seriously, I wonder what effect the increased recoil and blast is going to have on average soldier ability to shoot accurately...

      A 7.62 out of a 20" bolt action is bad enough...
      Falling for Judo since 1980

      "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

      "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

      "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

      Comment


        #48
        It's been a few days, so I'll give my opinion now. That opinion has evolved a bit since the project was announced. When it was first announced, I said it was a stupid waste of money, will not be adopted and that Overmatch was retarded, as most of the things TRADOC comes up with are. Overmatch, despite what it says, vastly overemphasizes the role of small arms in combat. Individual battles might be won and lost with small arms, but wars are won with air power, sea power, big munitions, and probably space power in the future.

        Since then, I've taken time to better educate myself on military trials of new weapons systems, and have come around a bit. I think it is a good thing that these trials exist, even though they rarely result in the adoption of new firearms. Even if not a single one of these weapons systems sees combat, they will seed the idea that body armor penetration is key to acceptance of new weapons systems, and that someone needs to come up with a way to make a weapons that meets the requirements of the current trial usable in a modern uniformed battle. I still don't think any of these weapons systems will be adopted, but I see no problem with isolating small arms development to see where you can go with it. Truly I don't think we will be dropping 5.56 until someone comes up with a reliable, practical, and inexpensive exosuit or equivalent. The recoil, complexity, and weight characteristics of a weapons system that does what Overmatch dictates will make any such system ineffective at present.

        My thoughts on the three competitors:

        Sig is too conventional in their thinking. The firearms both look fine, but the 6.8x51 round they are pushing (incidentally I don't think it is precisely the same as .277 Sig fury) is way too incremental and inside the box. Still I think they came up with good baseline firearms and were a good "safe" competitor.

        General Dynamics is thinking too far outside the box. Americans haven't adopted bullpups for some pretty compelling reasons. Lack of ambidextrous utility (or too open a system to be even as reliable as an M4) is primary. But they get credit for taking a swing. I think a bullpup is a great design to emulate if the cartridge is caseless and there is nothing to eject. When we get there I think bullpups will be competitive. The barrel to overall length ratio is nice, and makes high performance projectiles more realistic in parameters.

        Textron I think is right in line with what I think the trials are pushing for, with the exception of the increased weight on the soldier's load. Specifically from the ammunition. But the plastic cartridges are just far enough outside the box that I think at least their belt fed will get serious consideration. They've made great strides on improving ergonomics in just six months.

        TANSTAAFL. The loadouts are too bulky and weigh too much. I could see something like these eventually ending up in DMR or heavy weapons roles, but honestly I think the better solution to armor penetration at the moment is figuring out how to do explosive projectiles better, more in line with the previous attempts that I linked to above. And frankly we still haven't figured out how to win low intensity conflicts with poorly equipped people who just hate us and refuse to quit, so I think that deserves equal attention to this, though the solutions may not be as sexy as a futuristic battle rifle.
        "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

        Comment


          #49
          To go along with the new stuff:
          https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...e-smash-scope/

          Guaranteed hits!
          Falling for Judo since 1980

          "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

          "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

          "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

          Comment


            #50
            Sig has directly stated that the .277 Sig Fury round is identical to their NGSW submission. I think the projectile may be different in the sense that it isn't steel core, but it's the same fundamental round.

            Comment


              #51
              Based on the M17 adoption I'm fairly certain SIG has been paying some people off at the top. If we adopt something it will be the SIG design.

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
                Based on the M17 adoption I'm fairly certain SIG has been paying some people off at the top. If we adopt something it will be the SIG design.
                The defense contractors always pay off top defense officials. Typically in a legal fashion, 18-24 months after they retire. With board memberships and such.

                As for Sig winning the M17 contest, I think they paid better attention to the requirements than Glock. The serialized portion being that internal trigger housing is a DoD logistician's wet dream. The illusion of it somehow being cheaper to outfit people with an accessories kit or a shorter or longer gun instead of having multiple firearms options from the same family is the exact kind of shit DoD salivates over. Plus they undercut Glock on pricing, and they both did acceptably.

                Would I pick a Glock 19xish gun over a Sig P320? Yes, though I do have a recent manufacture SigP365 for CCW when I can't make a g19 work with my clothes. In fact I think DoD would have been smarter to just buy G19s but that's not how contracting works. And they feel the need to overcomplicate pistols with unnecessary safeties.
                "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

                Comment


                  #53
                  Originally posted by Cassius View Post
                  The defense contractors always pay off top defense officials. Typically in a legal fashion, 18-24 months after they retire. With board memberships and such.

                  As for Sig winning the M17 contest, I think they paid better attention to the requirements than Glock. The serialized portion being that internal trigger housing is a DoD logistician's wet dream. The illusion of it somehow being cheaper to outfit people with an accessories kit or a shorter or longer gun instead of having multiple firearms options from the same family is the exact kind of shit DoD salivates over. Plus they undercut Glock on pricing, and they both did acceptably.

                  Would I pick a Glock 19xish gun over a Sig P320? Yes, though I do have a recent manufacture SigP365 for CCW when I can't make a g19 work with my clothes. In fact I think DoD would have been smarter to just buy G19s but that's not how contracting works. And they feel the need to overcomplicate pistols with unnecessary safeties.
                  The RFP from the M17 contest was literally just a description of the P320. The winner was chosen from day 1.

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
                    The RFP from the M17 contest was literally just a description of the P320. The winner was chosen from day 1.
                    The MHS requirements derived from an Air Force sidearm modernization effort that started in 2008. Everybody had the cheat sheet ahead of time.
                    "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by Cassius View Post
                      The MHS requirements derived from an Air Force sidearm modernization effort that started in 2008. Everybody had the cheat sheet ahead of time.
                      Ne Obliviscaris

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Cassius View Post
                        The MHS requirements derived from an Air Force sidearm modernization effort that started in 2008. Everybody had the cheat sheet ahead of time.
                        My experience with RFPs is this, even when their is a Heir Apparent, they still are at risk of NOT getting the RFP, once proposals go in, who the fuck knows what these committees get up to.
                        Their is less graft and corruption in the process than people think, but their is a whole game to it.
                        Its a hard game to break into.
                        In part this is good, last thing we need is some crazy proposal coming in from left field. RFPs are usually written in a way to scope things down for that reason.
                        Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
                        –George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Originally posted by Cassius View Post
                          And frankly we still haven't figured out how to win low intensity conflicts with poorly equipped people who just hate us and refuse to quit, so I think that deserves equal attention to this, though the solutions may not be as sexy as a futuristic battle rifle.
                          Personally I see that as a strategic shortcoming as opposed to a tactical one. 5.56 has performed well enough against 7.62 with the correct training and teatment of the round’s capabilities versus the enemies. I believe that his new take has considered a peer level enemy (body armour and range, ie Russia) to be the governing factor which is reasonable enough.

                          In short I agree. Small arms won’t decide the conflict but the outcome of this test will hopefully assist the good blokes.
                          Ne Obliviscaris

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Stuck? Some proud Brit on Reddit insisted that it beats the M4A1 in every test imaginable...

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Originally posted by goodlun View Post
                              My experience with RFPs is this, even when their is a Heir Apparent, they still are at risk of NOT getting the RFP, once proposals go in, who the fuck knows what these committees get up to.
                              Their is less graft and corruption in the process than people think, but their is a whole game to it.
                              Its a hard game to break into.
                              In part this is good, last thing we need is some crazy proposal coming in from left field. RFPs are usually written in a way to scope things down for that reason.
                              There's graft and corruption in some cases. In many others there is incompetence. I am just thankful that neither of the two finalists was a terrible choice, regardless of how the winner was selected. If anything I feel kind of bad for FN because their 509 was a pretty good gun and probably deserved more consideration. Saw the gen 1s getting blown out for like half off MSRP and almost bought one.

                              At any rate pistols are basically an afterthought in combat so as long as they are not heavy and too complicated for beginners to use, anything reliable with good capacity is fine. Probably about 70% of the time they just end up getting left on the FOB anyway.
                              "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
                                Stuck? Some proud Brit on Reddit insisted that it beats the M4A1 in every test imaginable...
                                Literally every British unit that gets to choose their firearms has dumped the SA80. Bullpups in general are hard for a southpaw to get excited about, but the SA80 was crap from the start. I hear the most recent round of H&K mods to it have brought it up to "not dangerous to be carrying in combat," so there's that.
                                "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X