Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR"

[F-15 Eagle]

The UK's problems with the SA80 LSW had a lot more to do with the lack of robustness of the weapon. If you tried to fire a 30 round magazine in several machinegun bursts it would invariably jam. The IAR's are based on much better designs than the weak SA80 and have open bolt automatic firing to lower temperature in the action between bursts (which reduces the chance of jamming).

F-15 your objections seem based entirely on the magazine capacity as in higher is better. What is important is a weapon able to produce bursts when the gunner needs it.

I beg to differ the main short comings of the SA80 LSW where the limited 30 round mags and no ability to have a barrel change.

Your are right about one thing though that all of my objections are about magazine capability because that is one of the most important issues when it comes to SUPPRESSIVE and SUSTAINED fire for the gunner. The M249 SAW is great at this the IAR wont be able to do this unless Hell freezes over or when pigs fly you get the point.

 

[regstrup]

The UK's problems with the SA80 LSW had a lot more to do with the lack of robustness of the weapon. If you tried to fire a 30 round magazine in several machinegun bursts it would invariably jam. The IAR's are based on much better designs than the weak SA80 and have open bolt automatic firing to lower temperature in the action between bursts (which reduces the chance of jamming).

Well, the danish army use the Diemaco LSW, which is a quit good weapon. But the problem is not the LSW, it is the whole concept.

The problems according to the danish soldiers fighting in Helman is, that they need a light weapon wich can give substainble fire in the squad, which the LSW can't give enough of, because the Beta-C mag malfunction in the dusty terrain of Afghanistan and the 30 round mag dosen't give enough effect, because you have to change mags way to often.

Actually because of the lack of a Minimi or MG4, the soldiers drag along the much heavier MG3 to get the needed firepower, which means two types of ammunition in the squad.

Even if the Beta-C mag worked, they would very fast face the next challange, because the barrel would very fast get to hot, making the LSW malfunction.

So I seriously doubt, that the IAR concept will be a succes and replace the beltfeed LSW, were the barrel can be changed.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Well, the danish army use the Diemaco LSW, which is a quit good weapon. But the problem is not the LSW, it is the whole concept.

The problems according to the danish soldiers fighting in Helman is, that they need a light weapon wich can give substainble fire in the squad, which the LSW can't give enough of, because the Beta-C mag malfunction in the dusty terrain of Afghanistan and the 30 round mag dosen't give enough effect, because you have to change mags way to often.

Actually because of the lack of a Minimi or MG4, the soldiers drag along the much heavier MG3 to get the needed firepower, which means two types of ammunition in the squad.

Even if the Beta-C mag worked, they would very fast face the next challange, because the barrel would very fast get to hot, making the LSW malfunction.

So I seriously doubt, that the IAR concept will be a succes and replace the beltfeed LSW, were the barrel can be changed.

Amen to that very well said cheers. The U.S. Army knows this and they will not buy the IAR they will look to the MK 46 instead as a possible replacement for the SAW.

The U.S. Military can't bring itself to bear to replace the M16/M4 because the newer rifles don't have much of an advantage over current rifle so there is no way the IAR would have ANY advantage over the SAW.

History never lies and the mag fed rifle for the gunner role is a proven failure again history never lies.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well, the danish army use the Diemaco LSW, which is a quit good weapon. But the problem is not the LSW, it is the whole concept.

If the problem is the concept then why do you go on to say:

because the Beta-C mag malfunction in the dusty terrain of Afghanistan

Surely the problem is the magazine? The Beta-C is well none as a problematic magazine because the original design specified a flexible backing plate and they were built with stiff plates.

Actually because of the lack of a Minimi or MG4, the soldiers drag along the much heavier MG3 to get the needed firepower, which means two types of ammunition in the squad.

This is what its all about. How do you organise your infantry force. The US Marines have a lot of belt feed 7.62mm machineguns in their rifle companies. So they are finding having a belt feed 5.56mm LSW is extra weight in the arms of the soldiers while the GPMG (7.62) is doing all the machinegun work. So they want a light weight LSW that can fire bursts but also be pointed at roof tops for extended periods (the IAR!).

The having two calibres in the squad is a load of crap in my opinion. How many times has a 5.56mm belt being broken down to reload magazines? The flow for ammunition is in the other direction and assembling belts from used links and loose rounds in the field in an emergency situation is just near impossible. This is an issue for higher level supply and production not for the infantry squad. They take delivery of ammunition in two forms: belts and strip clips.

If you only have SA80, LMG36 or IAR LSWs in your infantry company then you are going to have a lot of problems providing sustained fires. However if you mix said weapons (assuming they work so count out the SA80) with a 7.62 GPMG then you actually have a mix that is better in some situations than all 5.56 LMG force.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

History never lies and the mag fed rifle for the gunner role is a proven failure again history never lies.

Wow... History does nothing but LIE! And the magazine LSW is not a proven failure, its won quite a few wars and will probably do so in the future.

 

[Chino]

You seemed to be pretty well-versed with ST Kinetics products. Are you working in ST Kinetics?:unknown

No, I am just a former rifleman (conscript & reservist) and a big fan of the Ultimax.

 

[Chino]

Wow... History does nothing but LIE! And the magazine LSW is not a proven failure, its won quite a few wars and will probably do so in the future.

The RPK74* seems to be the only successful example of LSW. I am trying to think of which other LSW on issue that serves the role in great number, long period and with satisfactory results. Any examples?

The concept of LSW doesn't seemed to have done so well in most militaries at all. LSW always walk the thin line between firepower and weight-saving. Too light, and things overheat, uncontrollable etc. Too heavy, and you're better off with a LMG/SAW.

*My definition of LSW is that it has to be a derivative of the assault rifle.

 

[dobrodan]

Well, I have not been too active on this board, but here´s my 2cents:

I am a firm believer in the IAR-concept, even though I would prefer a gun with a layout similar to the Brengun, as it woul accept larger double-stack mags (40-45rds) without any problems at all. Well, as such a gun does not currently excist (except some Stoner 63 and clones (although I believe those were closed-bolt guns).

The first thing to accept when adopting the IAR is that it is not belt-fed, and thereby needs to change it´s source of ammo maybe 3 times more frequent than a beltfed gun. That is IMO acceptable, because the mag is much faster to change, than inserting a new belt-box, and fiddling with the belt. Especially in a situation where you are close to the enemy, and don´t have an assistant to assist/cover you.

The easiest way to make up for the decrease in mag-capacity is to add more IARs to the fire-team. Each SAW removed from the fire-team should be replaced with two IARs (Which means one M16 should be removed as well). That will take care of the next problem too:
Lack of QCB:
As two barrels firing the necessary amount of ammo will run cooler than only one barrel shooting the same amount of ammo.
Also, the IARs is supposed to be able to fire from open bolt, which means they won´t have the problems the Danish LSWs have in A-stan, as it by some strange Danish decision fires from the closed bolt, unlike the other Diemaco LSWs.
Also, there is another reason the Diemaco-gun is flawed: It uses the direct impingement system of the M16, which works okay in assaultrifles, but has some bad consequenses in a machinegun: It heats up the bolt-assembly, thereby cooking away the lubrication, while adding a lot of carbon... But the worst thing by far, is that by overheating the bolt-assembly over and over again, it weakens the parts, which may lead to a breakage...

By using two IARs in each fire-team, no soldier should have substantially more weight to carry around than the others, unless he chooses to or is ordered to.

Now, as a Marine squad has three fire-teams, that could mean they could have six IARs in each squad... Or, one dedicated supporting fire-team could bring along two SAWs, or even better: A lightweight 7.62 belt-fed MG (for instance the new Ti M240, or even a PKM) for extra punch at long ranges, compared to 5.56. Sure, that would mean one extra type of ammo to bring along, but so what? Linked 5.56 is also an extra type of ammunition, as you can´t feed it directly into assaultrifles, unless you first delink and fill mags with it...

 

[Chino]

I am a firm believer in the IAR-concept, even though I would prefer a gun with a layout similar to the Brengun, as it woul accept larger double-stack mags (40-45rds) without any problems at all. Well, as such a gun does not currently excist (except some Stoner 63 and clones

The Bren class of weapon, lives on in the Ultimax. And it has been in existent for well over 20yrs.

But with the Ultimax out of the race, it is now quite definite that the IAR will be nothing more than a heavy-barrel assault rifle (or LSW). How this is an improvement over the current AR/SAW combo remains to be seen...

 

[dobrodan]

The Ultimax was one of my favorites in this race.

The other was the LWRC gun, as it seemed to be the lightest, and used a few interesting ideas.

While the Ultimax is a LMG, like the Bren, it is still unable to accept light, reliable, larger than 30rd mags, that won´t conflict with the ground in the prone position. Still, the original Ultimax mk1-4 would accept what seems to be the only reliable drum on the market, although it is IMO too heavy, bulky and expensive for anything but use in fire-bases, where a belt-fed would do the job just as well, if not better.

 

[Chino]

While the Ultimax is a LMG, like the Bren, it is still unable to accept light, reliable, larger than 30rd mags, that won´t conflict with the ground in the prone position. Still, the original Ultimax mk1-4 would accept what seems to be the only reliable drum on the market, although it is IMO too heavy, bulky and expensive for anything but use in fire-bases, where a belt-fed would do the job just as well, if not better.

True about the drum being bulky. I have posted pictures on other threads/forums of the rig for carrying 3 or 4 of these drums and it is really bulky. That's why since it was introduced in 82, we mostly use only 30rd mags during training. IAR concept? It seems we were on to that 20 years earlier than the USMC...

But irrelevant in the IAR context as this proprietary drum is completely not considered by the USMC for the IAR. Unless someone can make a reliable STANAG drum.

I have posted pictures from early 90s of an M16 with a rare STANAG 75rd drum. I wonder why they don't make a small 50rd drum. It'll be lighter, and probably more robust and reliable.

The most widely-issued LSW, the RPK74, uses a ridiculously long mag which looks like it makes prone firing difficult. But I guess the RPK will mostly be used as a heavy assault rifle as opposed to being support LMG. Which is also the role mapped out for the IAR.

EDIT:
The drum is not that much more bulky if it is just one drum in the weapon, it is still a very light and handy package. However the rig to carrying several drums is. And to your point about a belt-feed being more useful than the Ultimax in a "fire-base", I guess you would have to have fired the thing to appreciate its controllability and accuracy (or watch the youtube video). If you are hitting what you are aiming at, you may need less ammo so whether it has a 200rd belt capacity or not becomes less important.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Firstly a note on nomenclature:

GPMG: General Purpose Machine Gun – this is a weapon able to provide sustained suppressive fire in the fire team/squad/section and also able to be used as a Sustained Fire Machine Gun (SFMG) firing very long range and indirect fires thanks to a tripod and dial sight.

LSW: Light Support Weapon – this is a weapon used in a fire team/squad/section to provide suppressive fire but also able to be used from the shoulder as an individual weapon.

LMG: Light Machine Gun – an LSW able to perform sustained suppressive fire through use of open bolt firing (or low breech temperature using other systems), changeable barrel (or active barrel cooling) and large capacity magazines (not exclusively belt feed).

AR: Automatic Rifle – an LSW that can’t provide sustained suppressive fire because it lacks a changeable barrel and large capacity or open ended magazines (optional).

This is pretty much the international/western/NATO/historical standard for labeling these weapons through there are a few odd terms like SAW, IAR, they tend to be names for individual projects.

That is IMO acceptable, because the mag is much faster to change, than inserting a new belt-box, and fiddling with the belt. Especially in a situation where you are close to the enemy, and don´t have an assistant to assist/cover you.

There are other alternatives like larger capacity magazines. The Beta-C built to its original design is a reliable magazine. The Ultimax 100 round drum is a fairly typical clockwork drum and there is nothing wrong with clockwork systems unless your soldiers are drugged out Liberian gangsters.

The HK73 is the most interesting 150 round clockwork magazine because it is open ended. It can be feed while in action by stripper clips. This is really the only “one” type of ammunition per section option as stripper clips is how ammunition is delivered for assault rifles.

 

[dobrodan]

The problem with a 50rd drum is that two 30rd mags would still be a lot less bulky, and probably lighter as well.
The best solution to this problem (with bottom-fed guns) may be quad-stack magazines, or clock-work magazines, like the one showed above, if the reliability-problems can be fixed. A clockwork magazine like the one above may not need to be as reliable as a quadstack-mag, because it is most likely to be used in a stationary position, where it won´t be knocked around as much as during fire and movement.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Wow... History does nothing but LIE! And the magazine LSW is not a proven failure, its won quite a few wars and will probably do so in the future.

Yeah sure the only good LSW was the RPK-74 but it has not won any wars and NATO has yet to find a good LSW that can provide heavy suppressive fire and sustained fire as well well being mag fed at the same time.

LSW are dead in the water and the point is moot.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

AR: Automatic Rifle – an LSW that can’t provide sustained suppressive fire because it lacks a changeable barrel and large capacity or open ended magazines (optional).

And thats what the IAR is an automatic rifle its name says it all. Its just a heaver assault rifle and the SAW is more suited for the job of sustained suppressive fire.

 

[dobrodan]

One IAR may not be able to provide sustained suppressive fire, but two can... And that even better than just one SAW, because the SAW will need fire-breaks to insert new ammo, and to change the barrel, while two IARs can cooperate, overlapping when in need for fire-breaks...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

One IAR may not be able to provide sustained suppressive fire, but two can... And that even better than just one SAW, because the SAW will need fire-breaks to insert new ammo, and to change the barrel, while two IARs can cooperate, overlapping when in need for fire-breaks...

Marine Squads have 3 SAWs each and the SAW can fire a lot longer without taking fire brakes than the IAR with its small and limited 30 round mags.

 

[dobrodan]

But if each squad has three fire-teams, and each fire-team has 2 IARs? That means 6 IARs, and that is even better than 3 SAWs, because it means they in theory can fire at 6 different targets at the same time...

Also, what will happen to you if you keep your head up, and fire all the time? The enemy is not stupid, you know...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

But if each squad has three fire-teams, and each fire-team has 2 IARs? That means 6 IARs, and that is even better than 3 SAWs, because it means they in theory can fire at 6 different targets at the same time...

Also, what will happen to you if you keep your head up, and fire all the time? The enemy is not stupid, you know...

For one the Marines are hoping replace the SAW with the IAR on a 1 for 1 basis not a 2 for 1 like your saying. But it does say something about the IAR if you need 2 weapons just to replace 1 SAW doesn't it?

The whole point of the belt fed is that you can put down heavy suppressive fire without reloading a mag as often, this is a stupid move on the U.S. Marines part.

The goal of the SAW is to keep their heads down and if they stick their heads up when the SAW is putting 200 rounds of lead down range then it wont end so well for the enemy now would it.

If the Marines just stick with the current plans like the Army with 3 SAWs and 10 M16/M4s each then USMC squads will have more than enough firepower to deal with any enemy but with the IAR you wont have that volume of fire which the solders love to have and need in a fire fight.

 

[dobrodan]

Yes, I´m aware that they intend to do it on a one-to-one basis, and I believe that is a grave error, and that they will discover and fix it quite fast.

Now, the weight of a M249 with a spare barrel, and an M16 is probably a bit more than the weight of two IARs. That means the fire-team with the IARs will be able to move a bit faster than the fire-team with the M249, especially if this is in the mountains of Afghanistan.
Together, those two IAR-gunners, should be able to provide at least the same firepower and volume of fire as the SAW-gunner, and are even able to put more lead on more targets faster than the SAW-gunner should the need arise.

How do you know it´s the SAW that keeps the enemies heads down, and not the PKMs of the enemy keeping the SAW-gunners down? They do not only have a bit more range, but strikes harder too, thereby at least kicking up a lot more dirt than 5.56... It´s a two way shooting-range out there you know!

I have carried a beltfed enough to tell you that it´s not fun having to stop and insert a new belt in the gun while ten metres from the enemy machine-gunner, who was in the same situation as me... Although that was only an exercise, it changed my view on a few things... Btw, I got him with my Glock after some quick thinking

The ideal Marine squad as I see it, would consist of five IAR-gunners, and one 7.62 LMG-gunner (outfitted light enough to be able to keep up with the rest of the squad)