US Army News and updates general discussion

[FormerDirtDart]

This article discusses True Velocity’s 6.8 mm cartridge, the TVCM. Apparently it may be applicable to several current 7.62 x 51 mm weapons by swapping out the barrels. Although partnered with a gun manufacturer for the current weapon replacement project, if the program gets cancelled (not uncommon for recent US Army acquisitions), it leaves True Velocity in the position of being able to enhance some existing weapons for a minimal cost.

7.62x51mm Rifles And Miniguns Adapted To Fire Longer-Range Polymer Cased 6.8mm Ammo In Tests

Ammunition maker True Velocity says it can give many guns that fire 7.62x51mm ammunition far better performance with just the swap of a barrel.

www.thedrive.com

And, even if it is selected as the ammunition of choice for the NGSWs, no legacy 7.62x51 weapons are presently subject to replacement by the NGSW program. There are literally tens of thousands of weapons that will remain in the US military systems' (not to mention other international users) for decades to come that may benefit from conversion to the 6.8mm TVCM. This may also be true with SIG Sauer's hybrid 6.8 cartridge. Though SIG's offering generates very high chamber pressure so that it can achieve the NGSW range/penetration requirements from their carbine offering's seriously short barrel (made necessary to meet weight requirements)

While I've seen a high number of comments on some mil/firearms' focused sites that this shows TV feels they won't be selected (small minded twits IMO). I see this as a very shrewd viral marketing move. And, I bet there are more than a few folks over at SIG that wishes they had already put on the same demonstration. And, SIG's people may be wondering if their high pressure round can do it at all. (and so might others)

 

[Terran]

It is good marketing. Yet remember the Rifle is the base platform of choice here. Personal opinion here I have. I hate the rifle like the ammo. The rifles used for the NGSW Carbine and LMG by TV are imho the weakest of the three offerings. That’s not me just blasting Bullpup rifles. It’s the form of bullpup they chose in ergonomics from my perspective. SIG has the best rifle and LMG here. I expect TV, SIG and Textron to continue development and offering of the NGSW technology and packaging to allied states post award. As I posted elsewhere the SIG package is already being pitched for Australia.

 

[John Fedup]

What if the weapon replacement program falls apart for whatever reason, is the conversion of applicable weapons to TVCM viable? If it is viable then in a tight budgetary environment does it make sense?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

What if the weapon replacement program falls apart for whatever reason, is the conversion of applicable weapons to TVCM viable? If it is viable then in a tight budgetary environment does it make sense?

Large scale likely not. Now, US SOCOM has been actively adopting various weapons in 6.5mm Creedmore, as it is dimensionally similar to 7.62 NATO and legacy systems can use it with an barrel change. If it can be the 6.8mm TVCM has better penetration and terminal ballistics there would be a case to be made.
But otherwise I would see it a a tough road to take., as any adoption for legacy weapons would have been based on the option of commonality and simplifying logistics.
Might make some sense for smaller Armies that aren't constrained by NATO standards.

 

[Terran]

What if the weapon replacement program falls apart for whatever reason, is the conversion of applicable weapons to TVCM viable? If it is viable then in a tight budgetary environment does it make sense?

This is a make or break deal. As @FormerDirtDart points out. Adoption of 6.8x51 in intent on being used by main line infantry formations as such adoption requires a rifle host most Nato states save for Turkey phased out standard infantry rifles of that caliber decades ago. The US if it adopts 6.8x51mm TV would be able to push through NATO like it did 5.56x45 or 7.62x51mm the caliber as a preferred type. Individual nations in NATO could try but almost none have the production or economic power the US has.
This said the Bullet used in all three offerings is the same it’s the propellant and cartridge where they differ. Basically the Government developed the tip. The package is proprietary.

 

[ngatimozart]

This is a make or break deal. As @FormerDirtDart points out. Adoption of 6.8x51 in intent on being used by main line infantry formations as such adoption requires a rifle host most Nato states save for Turkey phased out standard infantry rifles of that caliber decades ago. The US if it adopts 6.8x51mm TV would be able to push through NATO like it did 5.56x45 or 7.62x51mm the caliber as a preferred type. Individual nations in NATO could try but almost none have the production or economic power the US has.
This said the Bullet used in all three offerings is the same it’s the propellant and cartridge where they differ. Basically the Government developed the tip. The package is proprietary.

Well maybe the trusty L1A1 SLR could see service again Great weapon that, especially the Lithgow Armoury built weapons.

 

[Terran]

LoL but More than a bit dated, and inventory was destroyed or sold off Tooling is gone to. Then you have the issues of the design that’s now 68 years old.
No there are modern rifles that if needed could be adapted to the round.
Scar H, CZ Bren 2BR, HK417, ARX 200, MSBS 7.62, Tavor 7, ACE 52/53, MDRX and more. Are all avalanches to be adapted or adopted and licensed. Even it’s Sig Competition could be modified to fire the TV round if needed.

 

[Terran]

It is good marketing. Yet remember the Rifle is the base platform of choice here. Personal opinion here I have. I hate the rifle like the ammo. The rifles used for the NGSW Carbine and LMG by TV are imho the weakest of the three offerings. That’s not me just blasting Bullpup rifles. It’s the form of bullpup they chose in ergonomics from my perspective. SIG has the best rifle and LMG here. I expect TV, SIG and Textron to continue development and offering of the NGSW technology and packaging to allied states post award. As I posted elsewhere the SIG package is already being pitched for Australia.

Okay, correction time. This didn’t age well. since I posted this more information has become available. I based my first assessment on guesses made off photos and what had made it into promotional videos. Since then Team TV allowed Task & Purpose to get some trigger time on the RM277.
video here.

I had assumed that the control ergonomics were closer to AUG, SAR 21, TAR 21. I was wrong.
The Charging handle is unique. It’s very long and very forward this is likely to accommodate both the bolt and the added length of the reciprocal operation of the barrel.
Magazine release is similar to the Desert tech MDR series or the IWI Tavor 7/X95. It’s located on the trigger guard just above where an extended finger would naturally rest similarly to what is found on AR15.
Selector is also AR style and again similar to the Tavor 7 and MDR.
Bolt release is unique. Previous versions didn’t seem to have this yet the version fired has a shelf located above the selector that is pushed to unlock the bolt. Both Tavor 7 and MDR use a tab located behind the magazine well, as both also having an HK style slot to lock the charging handle into.
The ejection port is again very similar to both Tavor 7 and MDR. A set of covers that can be swapped from one side or the other, however this doesn’t mean that the RM277 can go from right to left instantly, MDR has that ability but Tavor 7 needs a field strip to reverse some bolt parts.
Due to this I am forced to reassess my opinion, to I dislike the rifle and LMG but like the ammo. My assessment now is just an emotional distaste of this Bullpup primarily due to first the eccentric charging handle next the choice of a just extended length barrel and bipod added for the “Automatic rifle” version. Reason they went with a bullpup is logical, rational. They wanted to keep the overall length close to that of an M4 well milking every possible PSI boost they could get from a long barrel.
One more note here the teaming is hard to keep up on. True Velocity is about the only side that is clear cut on what they do. Yet this team is also Berretta, General Dynamics and Lonestar Future weapons.

*because of similar caliber between the Tavor 7 and RM227 as well as the virtually identical features between Tavor 7 and X95. I will only compare to Tavor 7 however true for one true for the other in this comparison.

Oh you thought I was done? No more because the other two bidders also have gone to YouTube.

Team Textron.

Love this video set as they actually field striped the weapons. We see what is going on in the weapon. Teaming H&K (yes that HK), Textron, Winchester, LMT.
Operation resembles the XM8/HK433 rifle in terms of controls. Bolt release at the bottom of the trigger guard is right off XM8, selector off XM8, only major change is the charging handle off the 443 and the additional clearing rod.
Textron is also going cutting edge with a power rail. In some ways I view this as the son of the OICW program. Not a grenade launcher with a carbine, true but it is picking up where that program failed.
LMG version.

Open bolt weapon with semiautomatic option on the selector this means rather than the typical push button type safety you have a more rifle like switch. The Negev from Israel also has a semi option of fire as does the ultimax lmg. It’s still rather uncommon but it’s rather useful feature as it means you can now actually zero the weapon or fire more controlled than bursts. Unique top cover means that you don’t loose zero on a reload. Yet still very familiar with the the M249. No Quick change barrel but rate of fire is down anyway. Besides all these are going to have a digital fire control group (fancy scope).


Sig. yeah no team all in house.
built off their MCX M originally offered for the CSASS M110A1. The MCX SPEAR. It’s has a foldable stock which is unique from its competition. It’s controls are almost 1:1 M4A1 you could drop this into the hands of a current soldier and just start shooting. The only changes ergonomic wise are a second left side non reciprocal charging handle and the duplication of magazine release and bolt lock on the mirrored side. (Leftie friendly) even has the stupid button (forward assist plunger). Function wise SPEAR and M4 are very different MCX is a short stroke gas piston gun. M4 uses what is either dubbed a Direct impingement system or an Internal piston system. The difference is that in M4 gas siphoned up the gas tube pushes on a piston face that is part of the bolt carrier group. In MCX it hits the piston cup on a separate piston that then hits the BCG.
In the RM277 video Cappy makes a comment that troops getting that weapon probably would have any other. That’s actually so wrong that even the army has pushed back. M4A1 and M249 will likely remain in service for at least two more decades. With M4(A1) Carbine and 5.56x45mm hanging around in its original intended role as a PDW. The SIG MCX base means that down the line if the army decides to tailor M4A1 even more to that PDW mission a weapon for cooks, Vehicle crews, book keepers and second line guys who don’t need the AP. Then dropping an MCX package might make cross training as easy as a hading the soldier a magazine to shoot. It’s so similar to the existing AR platform that Sig is saying that the weapon could be rechamber to 7.62x51mm. Again as the receiver sets were designed for the CSASS a 7.62x51mm rifle. This may mean down the line the army could decide to move up to a 25 round magazine and use off the shelf Pmags.
Like the Textron bid it’s a short barrel, 13” this is to give it an M4 overall length about comparable to a 16” civilian AR. When you consider the added receiver sand hinge length. Since all three have to show a can that will quickly get to M16 length. Also power rails for everyone!!
Now for more details on the SPEAR

Of course a second variant the LMG 68.

Sig basically developed the .338 Norma MG338 this gun is its sibling. It has an option for a Quick change barrel but the Army doesn’t want that for NGSW at least not yet. The barrel does reciprocate to try and buffer recoil like the TV guns. Sig and likely Textron both view these as options to replace both the M249 and M240B/M240L machine guns TV is pushing retrofit to the latter. At least in theory other M240 based and 762x51mm guns could be retrofitted with 6.8x51Fury though not as easy as the 6.8 TV. Both Textron and Sig can be loaded with the feed tray closed. Left side folding none reciprocal charging handle
However this gun can also be rechambered to 7.62x51mm which being still more common allows easy access for volume of training ammo.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Army has issued a RFP to Lockheed Martin and Bell for the FLRAA. The Lockheed Martin contender is the Sikorsky Boeing SB-1 Defiant which is a coaxial main rotor helicopter with a pusher propeller mounted at the end of the tail boom. The Bell contender is the Bell V-280 Valor which is a conventional tiltrotor. At the same time the FARA project appears to be progressing in parallel. It is thought that the same aircraft will participate in the competition. It is not known when the RFP for that will be issued.

US Army triggers competition for future long-range assault aircraft

The Army has released its request for proposals to two industry teams to build its future long-range assault aircraft. According to FY22 budget documents, it also laid out a schedule to reach a first unit equipped by FY30.

www.defensenews.com

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The Army has issued a RFP to Lockheed Martin and Bell for the FLRAA. The Lockheed Martin contender is the Sikorsky Boeing SB-1 Defiant which is a coaxial main rotor helicopter with a pusher propeller mounted at the end of the tail boom. The Bell contender is the Bell V-280 Valor which is a conventional tiltrotor. At the same time the FARA project appears to be progressing in parallel. It is thought that the same aircraft will participate in the competition. It is not known when the RFP for that will be issued.

US Army triggers competition for future long-range assault aircraft

The Army has released its request for proposals to two industry teams to build its future long-range assault aircraft. According to FY22 budget documents, it also laid out a schedule to reach a first unit equipped by FY30.

www.defensenews.com

The RFP for FARA was issued years ago, bids were down selected to the LockMart/Sikorsky Raider X and Bell 360 Invictus over a year ago. With the competitive fly-off scheduled to commence toward the end of next year

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The RFP for FARA was issued years ago, bids were down selected to the LockMart/Sikorsky Raider X and Bell 360 Invictus over a year ago. With the competitive fly-off scheduled to commence toward the end of next year

Bell changes design for the US Army’s future attack recon aircraft

Here's how Bell has changed its design for the prototype it is building for the U.S. Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft competition.

www.defensenews.com

I dont understand why the US doesn't reuse the RAH-66 as a base for an updated design, decades of development and nearly US$7 billion had been already spent on the program.
Was the design of the RAH-66 that bad or was reusing its design too cost effective?

 

[Terran]

Bell changes design for the US Army’s future attack recon aircraft

Here's how Bell has changed its design for the prototype it is building for the U.S. Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft competition.

www.defensenews.com

I dont understand why the US doesn't reuse the RAH-66 as a base for an updated design, decades of development and nearly US$7 billion had been already spent on the program.
Was the design of the RAH-66 that bad or was reusing its design too cost effective?

First was the age of the system. The RAH66 was already long over due enough that it’s systems were obsolete. Second was the mission wants. They had dramatically changed. The Army wants a faster bird. The cruise speed of Invictus is projected at 180kn. That’s faster than the max speed dash of RAH66. Also Stealth isn’t as much a factor. RAH66 wanted to be stealth. But the Army reassessment realized that at helicopter altitude, the bigger threats were in visual range and able to hear the chopper. At that range radar would see it anyway. Then you look at what was being pushed at it. They intended to make it replace Apache too. A set of external stores was being developed. That would have rendered what stealth it had pointless. On top of it all it was eating a huge hole in Army Aviation.
Cool idea questionable practicality. Aspects of it like fly by wire, IR suppression, vibration control are probably in both I even suspect the sun is strongly derivative of Comanche’s. But in mission doctrine FARA and RAH66 are night and day. The Army drafted this more for scout and urban knife fights than the Stealth scout cavalry of Comanche.
Invictus resemblance to Comanche was due to low drag, Bell finally dropped the festron tail likely saving on weight perhaps getting them closer to projected top speed. Though I still favor Raider X. Faster more potential for mission growth.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Bell changes design for the US Army’s future attack recon aircraft

Here's how Bell has changed its design for the prototype it is building for the U.S. Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft competition.

www.defensenews.com

I dont understand why the US doesn't reuse the RAH-66 as a base for an updated design, decades of development and nearly US$7 billion had been already spent on the program.
Was the design of the RAH-66 that bad or was reusing its design too cost effective?

The US military is required by law to conduct an open bidding process for almost all procurements. The RAH-66 program no longer exists (for the past 19 years) so there is absolutely no ability to restart it. The US military does not own the design nor intellectual property of the RAH-66 so it can't really designate it as the basis of a proposed aircraft. Every bit of technology involved in the RAH-66 program is at this point literally 20-to-30 years old. Now, Sikorsky was free to include any and all design/technology/IP they possess to the rights to from the RAH program in their bid. As can Bell use any tech the developed from their fail LHX bid.

Contrary to what Terran has posted while I was typing, the LHX program and it's RAH-66 was never intended to replace the AH-64 Apache. It was intended as a replacement for the Army's OH-58 and AH-1 used in reconnaissance roles. And by the time the program was cancelled solely the OH-58D which the AH-1 had been replaced by.

 

[Terran]

The Army’s original plan was to buy something like 1,213 RAH66 that’s almost double the number of OH58 they ever had. The 2000 Aviation Force Modernization “The Army remains completely committed to the COMANCHE, a variant of which may be considered as the possible long-term solution for the attack helicopter beyond Apache Longbow.” I am sourcing the Sikorsky archive on that. Sikorsky Archives | RAH-66
So at least it sounds like someone with stars on a shoulder was looking that way.
Yes though the main program aims were to replace AH1 which was out of army service by about then and the OH58. But it never happened the program was scrapped funds reallocated to other aviation programs. And Comanche is now a foot note in history.

 

[Terran]

Kinda interesting more for the concept imagery than the run down. The latter is more of a refresh.

In particular it deals with the Lynx KF41 OMFV. So two compartments basically the crew compartment with two men operating in a modern configuration. Then the infantry compartment with nine in 6 facing in each other two winged at the inboard corners and the infantry commander facing the hatch.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Kinda interesting more for the concept imagery than the run down. The latter is more of a refresh.

In particular it deals with the Lynx KF41 OMFV. So two compartments basically the crew compartment with two men operating in a modern configuration. Then the infantry compartment with nine in 6 facing in each other two winged at the inboard corners and the infantry commander facing the hatch.

It's important to note he was incorrect in his list of bids. Primarily, BAE+Elbit are not pitching the CV90, rather a 2 staged approach (i.e present one vehicle first, then another) consisting of a turreted AMPV in the first stage.

 

[Terran]

Well I wouldn’t call it AMPV but basically Bradley 2.0. However the more interesting bit was the apparent interior layout of the Lynx offer.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Not sure many saw this coming.
Dynetics is using a launcher system derived from the US Army's discontinued Multi-Mission Launcher program equipped with AIM-9X missile as the interceptors to defeat cruise missiles and large drones

Dynetics Beats Out Iron Dome For $237M Army Missile Defense Contract - Breaking Defense

Dynetics won a contract to produce the Army's Indirect Fires Protection Capability capability.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Not sure many saw this coming.
Dynetics is using a launcher system derived from the US Army's discontinued Multi-Mission Launcher program equipped with AIM-9X missile as the interceptors to defeat cruise missiles and large drones

Dynetics Beats Out Iron Dome For $237M Army Missile Defense Contract - Breaking Defense

Dynetics won a contract to produce the Army's Indirect Fires Protection Capability capability.

breakingdefense.com

It was expected if you followed news about the Iron Dome after its acquisition by the US.
To summarize said news, the US was un-pleased about Iron Dome's incompatibility with the Army's C2 network and its components, like the Sentinel radar for example.
Rafael could not get the approval of the Israeli government to share source code with the US Army and Raytheon, and so the Army naturally selected the more expensive, less capable, and less mature, but more systematically compatible system.

 

[OPSSG]

Contrary to what Terran has posted while I was typing, the LHX program and it's RAH-66 was never intended to replace the AH-64 Apache. It was intended as a replacement for the Army's OH-58 and AH-1 used in reconnaissance roles. And by the time the program was cancelled solely the OH-58D which the AH-1 had been replaced by.

Thanks for that clarification.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1445758497438650375

The Future Vertical Lift program to procure both a future long-range assault aircraft (FLRAA) and a future attack reconnaissance aircraft (FARA) at nearly the same time.

IMO, the US Army can dream but it must execute within cost margins. For FARA, Bell revealed its 360 Invictus (First flight planned in 2023) and Sikorsky revealed its Raider X. Of the 5 competitors, only two were down selected by the US Army to build prototypes — in Apr 2021, Lockheed Martin company Sikorsky’s S-97 Raider helicopter prototype has flown two demonstrations for the US Army. Maj. Gen. Wally Rugen, who is in charge of the US Army’s FVL modernization and oversees the FARA and FLRAA programs, told Defense News in a recent interview that he believes the program can live within the means laid out in the report.

“Our assessments are that we are below that 1.6 percent and that 4.6 percent,” Rugen said. “We have to live with that, below our means, and our program has to stay there to maintain affordability.”