The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States

[Dodger67]

A statement in the recently released second draft of the South African Defence Review that caught my attention seems to be relevant to this topic.

The reviewers stated that there is a requirement for a less penetrative round than the standard 5.56 for use in peacekeeping operation in Africa.
The flimsy nature of structures in shanty-towns or rural mud-hut villages makes overpenetration a serious risk to innocent neighbours. Killing a child three huts away while on a house-to-house round-up of rebels is unacceptable. The review committee stated that troops should be trained and equipped with shotguns and handguns or submachineguns for such "police-style" operations.
Such small arms are not usually part of standard infantry kit - only MPs and SF members are routinely issued shotguns and/or SMGs.

 

[TrangleC]

A statement in the recently released second draft of the South African Defence Review that caught my attention seems to be relevant to this topic.

The reviewers stated that there is a requirement for a less penetrative round than the standard 5.56 for use in peacekeeping operation in Africa.
The flimsy nature of structures in shanty-towns or rural mud-hut villages makes overpenetration a serious risk to innocent neighbours. Killing a child three huts away while on a house-to-house round-up of rebels is unacceptable. The review committee stated that troops should be trained and equipped with shotguns and handguns or submachineguns for such "police-style" operations.
Such small arms are not usually part of standard infantry kit - only MPs and SF members are routinely issued shotguns and/or SMGs.

What about the 4.6mm ammunition for the H&K Personal Defense Weapon/MP7? It was specially designed to have similar ballistic characteristics to the 5.56, but less penetration power to reduce collateral damage.
To be more precise, it was designed to penetrate the front of a body armor vest, but not exit on the back.


About the subject of this thread:

I haven't read the whole thread, so please excuse if I'm repeating what others have said before, but isn't the notion of a "next infantry assault rifle" for the USA somewhat obsolete and... sort of "very nineties"?
There are so many different assault rifles and variants of those assault rifles in use nowadays by the US Army and Marines that the idea of searching for one new rifle to replace them all seems somehow odd and anachronistic.

I think the most recent "western" (NATO) army that introduced a new standard assault rifle was the German army with the G36 and even they still use the old G3 and that belt fed version of the G3 for their special forces and scattered throughout other parts of the army.
For example I recently saw a video about German armored infantry units ("Panzergrenadiere") in which a unit of 7 had 3 different G36 variants, 1 MP7, 1 machine gun and 2 G3, one in a sniper configuration and one in the conventional battle rifle configuration.

The point being that there isn't that much uniformity in the equipment anymore as there perhaps was in the 70s and 80s. Basically each soldier is equipped with the stuff best suited for his role within his unit and the pool to chose that equipment from is pretty diverse.

 

[Bonza]

Standardising on a single assault rifle type still makes sense I think. The example you cited with the German unit, for example, really only has three weapon types - G36 variants (which obviously have a lot of interchangeable parts, being all the same platform), a pair of G3s, and a machine gun. So it's not quite as diverse as it might seem. Four assault rifles of the same type, two battle rifles/DMRs of the same type, and a machine gun.

I don't think any new assault rifle is necessarily going to try to eclipse too many roles other than what it's designed for, that is the role of an assault rifle. You might get a system that can support a 7.62mm version to fill the DMR role but sniper rifles and machine guns are specialised for what they do, no chance of that being filled by an assault rifle platform at the present time.

I guess the USMC is moving in a slightly different direction with its M27 infantry automatic rifle, to partially replace and complement the M249, but again I think that's more properly considered to be acting in the machine gun's traditional role, rather than the assault rifle.

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit... my point was that if a force as large as the US Army can standardise on a certain weapon type, that does make sense. Admittedly it becomes a bit more murky when you include the various types used by SF, Marines and all... but if a weapon of sufficient capability can be procured that meets the requirements of all of them, then all the better. And if multiple weapon types can't be avoided, then commonality between peripherals such as magazine type, attachments etc should be high on the list of priorities, and is already well covered with existing weapons, to a large extent.

It doesn't have to be one service rifle for every role, it just has to meet its requirements for the user base.

 

[My2Cents]

What about the 4.6mm ammunition for the H&K Personal Defense Weapon/MP7? It was specially designed to have similar ballistic characteristics to the 5.56, but less penetration power to reduce collateral damage.
To be more precise, it was designed to penetrate the front of a body armor vest, but not exit on the back.

From the description of what they want that would probably be too much penetration, remember they want something that won’t punch through several mud or sinter block huts. An old fashion .45cal submachine gun might be a better choice. Shotguns are another possibility.

I haven't read the whole thread, so please excuse if I'm repeating what others have said before, but isn't the notion of a "next infantry assault rifle" for the USA somewhat obsolete and... sort of "very nineties"?
There are so many different assault rifles and variants of those assault rifles in use nowadays by the US Army and Marines that the idea of searching for one new rifle to replace them all seems somehow odd and anachronistic.

I think the most recent "western" (NATO) army that introduced a new standard assault rifle was the German army with the G36 and even they still use the old G3 and that belt fed version of the G3 for their special forces and scattered throughout other parts of the army.
For example I recently saw a video about German armored infantry units ("Panzergrenadiere") in which a unit of 7 had 3 different G36 variants, 1 MP7, 1 machine gun and 2 G3, one in a sniper configuration and one in the conventional battle rifle configuration.

The point being that there isn't that much uniformity in the equipment anymore as there perhaps was in the 70s and 80s. Basically each soldier is equipped with the stuff best suited for his role within his unit and the pool to chose that equipment from is pretty diverse.

The point being is to eliminate most of those different caliber weapons and get more uniformity back to lower the logistic footprint. The next infantry assault rifle will be fielded along with a new cartridge, likely to be in 6.5mm to 7mm range, and probably also incorporate a case telescoped round with a plastic case for reduced weight. Testing of the current brass cased rounds proposed as replacements indicate it should be possible to replace both the 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO with one round.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayLandmarkBAnthonyWilliams.pdf

One interesting effect would be squad automatic weapons would then have the same effective range (600m – 800m) as the .30cal GPMG/MMG, which may in turn call for improvements for the GPMG/MMG’s, such as
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday13662steimke.pdf
{note -- This is NOT being proposed as a .50cal replacement, but would have a similar effective range (1500m) against infantry.}

 

[TrangleC]

From the description of what they want that would probably be too much penetration, remember they want something that won’t punch through several mud or sinter block huts. An old fashion .45cal submachine gun might be a better choice. Shotguns are another possibility.

I understand. The problem is just that minimal penetration power can't be the only requirement for such a weapon. It still needs to be useful in a fight against people with AK-47 and the various 7.62mm rifles you encounter in African conflicts. I doubt that a 9mm or .45 sub machine gun would be sufficient.
They'll have to find some kind of compromise between reducing collateral damage and still being able to engage in a fire fight at several hundred meters/yards distance.

 

[Dodger67]

The intent is to suplement the soldier's weapons choice with a less penetrating option - not to take away his standard rifle.

Add "police type" weapons such as pistols and shotguns to the TO&E in addition to the existing rifle, 40mm GL, SAW, etc.

In peacekeeping (and sometimes disaster response) operations there is occasionally a need for non-lethal "riot control" type equipment such as rubber pellet or beanbag shotgun rounds, shields, pepper spray, CS grenades, etc.

Basically some infantry units need to be trained and equipped for "police type" roles in addition to their standard infantry training.

"When your only tool is a hammer all your problems look like nails"

 

[Dodger67]

Moderators

Perhaps this less/non lethal equipment subthread should be split off this topic - it's straying off the main subject.

 

[Raven22]

The intent is to suplement the soldier's weapons choice with a less penetrating option - not to take away his standard rifle.

Add "police type" weapons such as pistols and shotguns to the TO&E in addition to the existing rifle, 40mm GL, SAW, etc.

In peacekeeping (and sometimes disaster response) operations there is occasionally a need for non-lethal "riot control" type equipment such as rubber pellet or beanbag shotgun rounds, shields, pepper spray, CS grenades, etc.

Basically some infantry units need to be trained and equipped for "police type" roles in addition to their standard infantry training.

"When your only tool is a hammer all your problems look like nails"

There's no real need for special weapons - the 40mm grenade launcher (M79/M203 and newer variants) have less than lethal rounds that are quite effective in riot control. This was the reason that Australian Army units kept M79s in service even after the GLA came online during Timor. The M203 can't load the longer less than lethal round due to its design (well you can, but you have to take the barrel off to do it). Newer 40mm GLs, that open to the side, eliminate this problem.

 

[Dodger67]

That fills only one of the requirements - there's still a need for handguns, shotguns and other less-lethal and riot control equipment.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The intent is to suplement the soldier's weapons choice with a less penetrating option - not to take away his standard rifle.

Under barrel shotguns like the 12 Gauge M26 with a five round magazine. With most rifles having modular attachment points for under barrel grenade launchers the riflemen in the section can attach a shotgun unit to their weapons when patrolling into a village or urban area. You don’t need new sighting arrangements and the particular shotgun shell can be customised to your need. For the South Africans this would mean replacing the R4 or at least rebuilding them with modular rail systems.

 

[old faithful]

There's no real need for special weapons - the 40mm grenade launcher (M79/M203 and newer variants) have less than lethal rounds that are quite effective in riot control. This was the reason that Australian Army units kept M79s in service even after the GLA came online during Timor. The M203 can't load the longer less than lethal round due to its design (well you can, but you have to take the barrel off to do it). Newer 40mm GLs, that open to the side, eliminate this problem.

What about a prac round with a couple of D Cell batteries in front. (tounge in cheek!)
Been done before.....crowd dispersment.

 

[Volkodav]

The other option is an arms room set up, the troops are issued with what they need for the particular mission. This would be some what easier for mounted operations as a variety of weapons could be carried in the vehicles. The average solidier would still carry their standard service rifle / carbine most of the time but a variety of shotguns, grenade launchers, pistols and even SMGs as well as various attachments for the service rifles could be made available as required.

 

[Raven22]

What about a prac round with a couple of D Cell batteries in front. (tounge in cheek!)
Been done before.....crowd dispersment.

Conveniently they have special crowd control rounds now that do the same thing. D Cell batteries are still quite effective as 'get the hell away from my vehicle' devices though.

I reckon the most effective crowd control device out there is Army-strength pepper spray. I've been tear-gassed and tasered, but I would rather cut my testicles off with a spoon than be pepper sprayed again. It's feels like satan is raping your face.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I reckon the most effective crowd control device out there is Army-strength pepper spray. I've been tear-gassed and tasered, but I would rather cut my testicles off with a spoon than be pepper sprayed again. It's feels like satan is raping your face.

More effective than Birdshot?

The worst thing I've ever felt is that ADS microwave beam. Raytheon have a 'sampler' black box that you can put your finger up against. There is no way you can hold your finger against the nozzle beyond the time it takes for the muscles to work to pull your finger away. Being an idiot I tried a few times but had no time improvement by round 5-6.

 

[Dodger67]

For the South Africans this would mean replacing the R4 or at least rebuilding them with modular rail systems.

Such an upgrade is underway at a low rate - whenever a rifle gets sent to the OEM for servicing or repair it gets the upgrade that includes a few Picatinny rails.

 

[My2Cents]

I understand. The problem is just that minimal penetration power can't be the only requirement for such a weapon. It still needs to be useful in a fight against people with AK-47 and the various 7.62mm rifles you encounter in African conflicts. I doubt that a 9mm or .45 sub machine gun would be sufficient.
They'll have to find some kind of compromise between reducing collateral damage and still being able to engage in a fire fight at several hundred meters/yards distance.

You would have to run mixed weapons in a squad of course to supply long range firepower. This weapon appears to be meant for teams doing searches or hut-to-hut fighting (range < 50m).

But penetration is seldom an issue for the kind of conflicts they are engaged in. For guerrilla forces, only special units, who are carefully infiltrated into an area, often with their equipment traveling separately for security to be donned only for a pre-planned operation, protective body armor is seldom an issue. It is hot, confining, easy to spot and a dead giveaway when worn, and impossible to explain away when found in you possession. And whether worn or found in your possession it will almost surely be taken as proof of hostile intent.

 

[Dodger67]

Such an upgrade is underway at a low rate - whenever a rifle gets sent to the OEM for servicing or repair it gets the upgrade that includes a few Picatinny rails.

A bit late I know, but I've just found a photo of the South African R4 rifle upgrade. The black parts (except the pistol grip and magazine) are new. This is the basic rifle version.

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I think it weas a mistake not to continue with XM8 rifle.This rifle was lighter in weight than the M16/M4 rifles,the XM8 has a gas system that similar to the HK416 and M36 LAR under developement by the U.S.M.C. to replace the M249 SAW.Also the XM8 not only had the potentisal to replace the M16/M4 but also the M249 SAW in the base of fire role at the fire team,squad and platoon levels and the gas system would enable the XM8 to fired longer (25,000 rounds compared to 4500-5000rounds currently in the M16/M4).What fool would do something like this is beyound my comprehension.

 

[A.Mookerjee]

The thing is, is that the M16a1,a2,a3,a4 and the M4 Carbine will soon be very outdated, with Russia developing more complex Kalashnikov variants and the rest of NATO moving on to new weapons being produced in Europe.

There was while testing for the XM8 assault riffle, however was canceled.

I believe that the next candidate for a new Infantry riffle of the United States is the SCAR-L which is already in a lot of use in the US army rangers.

Not only that the SCAR 'variants' can be deployed as Assault and Heavy Battle riffles as well as CQB and CQBR forms

I want to know if there are any other better options?

What do you think:ar15

This seems very improbable. The M16 is a rifle not supposed to be replaced, and automatic rifles are always automatic rifles.

 

[CheeZe]

This seems very improbable. The M16 is a rifle not supposed to be replaced, and automatic rifles are always automatic rifles.

Many countries have moved on from the M16 because they have found it inadequate. Just because the DoD doesn't have plans to replace the rifle doesn't mean that it shouldn't be replaced. Many countries have produced a new assault rifle for its armed forces, for the US to fall behind in its R&D would mean a loss technical edge. There are many flaws in the weapon but buying, replacing and giving units training is more expensive than simply continuing to hold onto an imperfect yet usable weapon.

Your post comes across as very simplistic in its presentation, especially the comment regarding "assault rifles are always automatic rifles."

The XM8 was a great program and should have continued but alas...

Either the FN SCAR or the HK416/417 lines are viable replacements though I doubt there'll even be a program to replace the M16 with these. I'll be surprised if the US sets aside funds to replace its inventory of M16s within the next decade. It looks like they prefer to sink more money into the F35 program.