New rifles for Irish DF-fantasy and/or reality?

We all end up in the great WALT in the sky, sooner or later HK.

But you do raise some valid objections allied with an overall tone of ‘how dare you express these views…who do you think your are?’

Nobody special.

SO WE’VE GOT NEWBIE GPMGS AND THEY’VE RAILS-BUT HAVE WE LOST WEIGHT?

Yep the 2008 CoS’s report says 900 GPMGs were purchased for a cool Euro 10m….(see http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/home+page?openform). The 2006 report says 400 GPMGs were delivered in 2006 for Euro 4.4m. (and 1,400 new pistols, etc.)

Great…BUT do you mean we’ve got LWMGs/ Minimi FH 7.62mm’s weighing I think 11-12kg fully loaded and maybe 8-9kg unloaded, compared with the Auld GPMG?

I don’t think we have LWMG Minimi/MK 48s in 7.62s do we…at least outside of ARW?

So to be clear our “new” issue GPMG are just M240 type/MAG standards or are they a somewhat lightened M240G or even the newbie
M240L? (see http://www.defensereview.com/fn-m240l-762mm-mmg-medium-machine-gun-125-million-125m-for-fn-manufacturing-a-lighter-762mm-machine-gun-for-us-troops/

Or are they somehow improved H&K made L7A2 types?

Came across a New Zealand Army piece about how they (LIKE US) have fielded new MAGs from FN…no mention of weight saving though. See: http://www.army.mil.nz/at-a-glance/news/army-news/archived-issues/2006/365/mon.htm

Are we just replacing like for like here, more or less…where is the capability improvement…the weight saving? Okay the Rails are big, that’s true. Better gas system. Check…but otherwise?

Excuse the ignorance, but I mean what has been the weight reduction?
I mean can you quantify the weight saving to Irish sections who’ve been issued the new GPMG…is it dramatic? What are the carrying, if anything, for the weight saved?

SO WE’VE GOT NO PROBLEM WITH 40x46MM?

“40mm - not just the remit of ARW, now in wide spread use”

HK says I’ve missed the boat. I prefer to fly. According to him we’ve mainstreamed 40mm outside ARW and its just not an issue…..hmmmmmmm?

Okay. I defer, professional experience…you must know, right? I can’t possibly know, can I?

DF website says we’re using Diemaco M203 40mm UGLs…how do they compare with FN GL1s….or HK EGLM products or something else?
(See: http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=265 and http://www.heckler-koch.de/HKWeb/show/frameContent/17/4/17)

Do we have enough then that each section has a pair? Plus what would be the typical issue of rds to the section…say for Chad?

(sorry that may be something not appropriate to comment on for obvious reasons of DF requirements of confidentiality, etc.) Any replies please exercise common sense in level of detail suitable.

And what 40x46 projectiles are available….have we got anything like the an airburst 40mm (see http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/eurosatory2008/sections/daily/new-singapore-munition-bu.shtml)

And if 40mm is all sorted as you say HK we surely must have some of the Norwegian origin PPHE MK483 grenades….yeah?

And what about stand alone 40mm (not UGL) outside of ARW… in multi-shot maybe even….oh I dunno something like this: http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions/idex2009/sections/daily/day1/40mm-grenade-launcher-fro.shtml

(I can see HK freak right now).

But seriously, has stand alone 40mm even been looked at, trialled, what sort of difference could it make to Irish section capabilities, who do their bread and butter in ACP/PK missions where it might be a really useful/appropriate tool?

I would be a fan of that, following the position I’ve set out (admittedly at times a bit extreme.). Of course when trialling it…results may show its not worth it…I freely accept that could be case….

But why spend on AUG3s when you could be buying 40mm GLs…yes I know at first hear that is so totally OTT…but think about it?

Actually its seems to me that from some posts by more enlightened persons, that the way we could end up going is modular rebuild of some AUGs and buy in maybe some other AUG 3…..am I way off?

Apparently the Canadians are having their own 40mm ‘issues’…which makes me wonder how extensive 40mm is within our sections…..See http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/02/15/canadian-army-to-be-armed-with-heckler-and-koch-40mm-grenade-launchers.aspx


“Also SHRAAW is commonly available”

So every section has like the Singapore example I gave before maybe like two per section, yeah?

Once again I dunno if its appropriate to comment on-DF and DoD might not be happy.

Also backblast for FIBUA. Can we issue AT4CS models-we do have them right?

I assume we’ve plenty of HEDP and AST variants available?

The Wizards of Oz

Finally, I’ve just had a look at a DoD Australia publication of their Defence Capabilities, and they seem to be saying that their not planning a new small arms major update till 2019….so they will continue their LAND 125 project which is about evolving existing Steyr stocks with phase 3 maturing around 2012 …I think…its a rebuild and add stuff job….although I read they are focusing the improved AUG88 into dedicated grenadier, marksman, commander and standard sub-variants (the Cmmdr model would I guess be for the section leader and have added tech/optics prob) and …...so maybe we’ve got more time…and maybe this is the way to go with a limited spend……seeing as we’re part of the global AUG community and the Aussies kinda lead this (no disrespect to the Austrians) might we well not end up following their lead? Could we just coat tail them for a bit and on the cheap?

See: http://www.defence.gov.au/header/business.htm (see pp.59, on esp.)

ON CONTRACTS AND WAR

I didn’t imply our DoD people can’t contract. Although there was that one some time back for the big whirley-bird heli which I think didn’t go so well?……Okay that’s off thread. Lousy of me I know….BUT….

But seriously, yeah suppliers make different things-some have a range (FN and H&K would be able to offer a lot in one go) BUT the idea is your forcing them to form syndicates and partner within a tender…and the idea is for the limited spend you get clarity on an OVERALL capability enhancement. It also gets them to focus on integration of sub-systems ( “If we buy your optics, will it truly work with the AUG in that config? And they say… “why yes we know because we’ve partnered in the tender and checked it out with Steyr”, etc…).

If you buy piecemeal you get piecemeal improvements which could lack balance….that was my idea….

On the other hand HK may have a point..it would be v. messy and they’d whinge for the small beer money that would be involved..prob.

It was just an idea HK.

Ideas are not the ‘enemy’-to borrow a quaint word from Manic.

Ciao 4 now.

Avgas.

I’m afraid I can’t agree Poccington with your last post, and I still like the Picture!

Your comments in bold.

So maybe we need to step up from 5.56? Earlier you were suggesting PDW's as there was "no need" to have riflemen engaging targets at 300m or beyond.

Never said there is no need to engage targets beyond 300m. In fact what I said was we need to accept much more how important GPMGs and DM rifles are for beyond 300m-allied with 40mm. Therefore, because they are so much more important, you have the section carry more ammo for both the GPMG and 40mm, invest in new DM (or LSW) rifles and maybe MGLs as much as UGLs. As an additional (extreme) measure to complement this shift, and to reduce the extra weight that such a series of moves would entail, you might consider dumping 5.56mm rifles altogether and then going for a PDW for close-in…. It was a suggestion for debate. But as we’ve been over and back on that issue, I freely concede it is probably too risky and radical a move and just not worth it. The thought-exercise of opting for PDWs was linked to an increased emphasis on support weapons at longer range.

We're never going to be in a position where a section's manouver element is carrying any calibre under 5.56.

Funny that, because for much of the post-WW2 era Irish sections nearly always had at least one NCO with a 9mm CG….which is ‘below’ the 5.56mm in range (not much more than 100-150m). So it has happened in the past that armies have issued short range SMG type weapons to infantry teams as long as these are balanced by other weapons in the section (LMGs, LSW, DM rifles, FN FALS, or whatever). If its happened in the past that way, you can’t rule out some armies may experiment and reintroduce an SMG type weapon in their sections/squads under the guise of something like a PDW. Never say never. BTW I freely admit the fashion is to consider going heavier above 5.56 to 6.5, 6.8 or 7.62mm. But to argue against what is fashionable is not to say your argument is flawed.

You're not going to get a light 7.62 MG, they're always going to be a **** to carry unless you decide to make it out of plastic. You may be able to knock off a couple of kg but it's still going to be a ****. It's one of the sacrifices that has to be made to have the kicking power of a GPMG in your FSG.

I’m not saying it will ever be a light piece of kit, but LIGHTER is possible. Mk 48 O is lighter. It exists. The US are fielding it and other marks, and all at least shave off a few KG. There is always a cost with this I admit, but weight gains of even a few KG or less, are valid gains. That is what I’m talking about. BTW it is as much Titanium they are using to get weight savings as composites. If the GPMG has so much “kicking power” as you concede, then why not strive harder to get another belt carried by the section and a few KG shaved off? The cost and hassle could well be worth it.

Your idea's are all over the place, you don't even know the basic setup and kit contained in an Irish section.

The ideas presented here are mostly coherent, if at times the discussion has got side tracked and wanders. Happens to all threads as far as I can see. Moreover, the ideas are not necessarily my own (the RUSI paper on UK platoon weight/capability myth is one major source). If at times I present topics as a series of options/suggestions…that because I’m looking for discussion and debate. It does not mean I’m all over the place. Moreover, if I concede where I’m wrong or pushing the argument simply too far, for example re PDWs, then that does not weaken overall the ideas expressed in the OP. There are repeated core themes in what I’ve stressed: weight saving, the importance of 40mm being expanded upon, the centrality of the GPMG, the lesser importance of the basic rifle, the need for a DM weapon (while being open about whether it has to be in 7.62 or 5.56mm). These suggestions fit together in a context where I’m worried we just simply buy AUG replacements unit for unit…or postpone the replacement issue for too long.

I’m hoping for a fuller discussion here NOT a ‘I’m absolutely right and your totally wrong’ type exchange.

Av.

The M32 multi-barrel the USMC use, is designed to cover ranges between 150-400m.

There is also some ammo in 40x46mm that would go perhaps further.

Most PDWs do not go beyond 200m. However, no paintball gun will penetrate 0.6mm of tintanium and then several sheets of kevlar after that (the CRISAT target).