Author Topic: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun  (Read 52598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,338
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2010, 21:28:49 »
Outside my lane, however from the LSAT stuff I don't think so, and I would guess larger calibers would tend to be affected less due to the whole aspect ratio of crud to round.  :-\
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,587,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2010, 21:58:50 »
How is Knight planning to take advantage of this technology? With out releasing too much insider info.

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2010, 21:03:05 »
Alot of the arguments against a calibre conversion is the high cost of retooling industry and replacing weapons systems.  If there is a more effective intermediate calibre which could possibly replace both 5.56 and 7.62 wouldn't the LSAT program be the time and place to do so?

The core of the argument rests with the "green" army being made up of different but overlapping capabilities, which can do more than an average homogenized mass of people who all have the same kit.

There are very real pros to the 5.56 NATO caliber, and very real pros to the 7.62 caliber.  You've heard them all before (less weight vs stopping power, less recoil vs longer range, etc), but with a mixed caliber you begin to lose the benefits of both.

With an intermediate cal (6mm, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 7mm, whatever) you (usually*) lose for everything you gain.  For every riflemen you give some "oomph" to, you have now made him less accurate on rapid rate close up.  Likewise, you have taken away some "oomph" from the GPMGs.

*Note* There are some studies that show that even an intermediate round may surpass the joules produced by a 7.62 NATO round at some distances, but joules are not the only factor of lethality.

Now where that brings us on this thread is that it's not really worth it for the CF to replace our entire ball-based small arms arsenal when it's not really that broken, because even if we believed every word of the glossy manufacturers' catalogs the relatively small gain in some performance would not justify it.  And as per above, in a green environment you may even lose capability.  Yes, everyone would have the same round, but at our detriment.  And on that note, with incoming ammo/weapon types on the horizon, it's not the time anyway.

Think of this analogy:  If you're single, it may make the most sense to have a vehicle that is a bit of an all around vehicle, but as a family is it better to have two medium SUVs, or a small car and a large truck?  With the two SUVs you can't do anything as good as some of the other vehicles can.  You'll never have the good economy of the small car when you need it and you'll never have the utility of a huge pickup. 
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 21:06:43 by Petamocto »
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,338
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2010, 22:24:35 »
Dude - you need to get out more  ;)

 What If I have a 7.62mm gun, that can recoil not too much more than a 5.56mm gun, that in CQB the shooters can have as fast split times and good as if not better accuracy, plus kills out to 800m

 Then imagine this capability in a lighter ammo


FYI that idiot Brit (Tony Williams)who is tilting at windmills with the 6.5 Grendel needs to do a little more research himself and not spout off factory crap. Per Advisison pretty much diesected his argument on that.

 However all the Danish and Norwegian info seem to be pushing them back into 7.62mm for personal weapons and LMG's

 *I which I would encourage anyone to challenge my comments, and demand I come up to Gagetown with a rifle to demo...
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,219
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2010, 22:29:29 »
Same reasons to pass on the 6.8mm as the 6.5mm?
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2010, 04:05:39 »
...Then imagine this capability in a lighter ammo...

Well yes, of course, that's the whole thing right there (or half of it, anyway).  The other half being defining exactly what "not that much more recoil" actually is.

Yes, you and I as people involved with guns as the main effort of our work can confidently stand behind most weapon systems and own them as we fire them in terms of stance, but can some scrawny 18 year old who has grown up on video games still easily hit something on rapid rate with it?

I'm not saying it can't be done, of course, and in fact I would like nothing more than for it to be accomplished.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,587,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2010, 08:22:06 »
Yes, you and I as people involved with guns as the main effort of our work can confidently stand behind most weapon systems and own them as we fire them in terms of stance, but can some scrawny 18 year old who has grown up on video games still easily hit something on rapid rate with it?

I'm not saying it can't be done, of course, and in fact I would like nothing more than for it to be accomplished.

Hence why we train on weapons, not just give them to troops willy nilly.

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #32 on: August 04, 2010, 08:49:00 »
Hence why we train on weapons, not just give them to troops willy nilly.

That's the sad part though, we don't really train with weapons all that often.

A civilian would probably be staggered if they found out how many days a year your average Infantry soldier fired live rounds.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,587,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2010, 09:11:07 »
Once the current deployment cycle ends that could change for the troops benefit.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2010, 12:20:59 »
Alot of the arguments against a calibre conversion is the high cost of retooling industry and replacing weapons systems.  If there is a more effective intermediate calibre which could possibly replace both 5.56 and 7.62 wouldn't the LSAT program be the time and place to do so?
The change from traditional ammunition to telescoped ammunition would be the most opportune time to introduce new calibers.  But, there would still be significant industrial inertia against such a move as many manufactures would seek to transfer their existing projectile line into the new CTA or CLA production runs.  At the same time …
The core of the argument rests with the "green" army being made up of different but overlapping capabilities, which can do more than an average homogenized mass of people who all have the same kit.

There are very real pros to the 5.56 NATO caliber, and very real pros to the 7.62 caliber.  You've heard them all before (less weight vs stopping power, less recoil vs longer range, etc), but with a mixed caliber you begin to lose the benefits of both.

With an intermediate cal (6mm, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 7mm, whatever) you (usually*) lose for everything you gain.  For every riflemen you give some "oomph" to, you have now made him less accurate on rapid rate close up.  Likewise, you have taken away some "oomph" from the GPMGs.
I agree that we should not be looking for a single common intermediate calibre for the infantry company.  However, each of our current small arm & machinegun bullets was arrived at in its own stovepiped development – there is more owed to legacy & historical weapons than to any conscious effort to optimise at the aggregate level.

If there ever is an appropriate time to do aggregate level capability review/redesign of this nature, that time would be prior to the implementation of a decision to switch to telescoped (or some other new) ammunition. 

As soon as one changes calibre, muzzle velocity or projectile mass; there will be performance trade-offs in range, terminal effects, ability to fire automatic from the shoulder, etc.  On some weapon systems (GPMG or HMG), we may decide it better to give-up some weight & space savings offered by CTA & CLA in order to increase terminal effects (larger calibre) or increase the rate of fire (requiring more rounds carried in the same space to achieve suppressive fire over an identical time frame).  Should we re-introduce an SMG?  Would we be better served with different ammunition for the LMG and Assault Rifle? What role do shotguns play?  Determining the impacts of various potential changes and measuring their effect at an aggregate Sect/Pl/Coy/BG level is more than any of us are going to do sitting at our keyboards.

Fortunately, SARP II should provide an opportunity to properly make such an assessment.

Maybe we are already at the “90% solution” or maybe (after determining the requirements and working to a solution from there) we could find that our current system of 9x19mm, 5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm, and 12.7x99mm would be better replaced by telescoped ammunition equivalent to “conventional cased” 6x30mm, 10x22mm, 6x47mm, 8x60mm, and 15x120mm. (You’ll note that I have not discussed projectile weight, propellant or such things – this example really is only to be illustrative).

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2010, 19:28:08 »
Fortunately, SARP II should provide an opportunity to properly make such an assessment.

Not sure if you have heard, but SARP2 is no more.  Well, not in one piece, anyway.  It was growing into such a large all-inclusive beast that the decision was made to break it up into three stages to make sure we could get the ball rolling on a few critical projects.

Still SARP2 in concept, just not by name.

On that note, any argument on calibre or ammo type is dwarfed by the elephant in the room anyway, which is "What is the USA/NATO going to do?".  It wouldn't matter if Colt Canada and IVI came up with the most advanced new weapon/ammo combo the world has even seen; I can't see us doing anything that the US doesn't do first.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,219
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2010, 19:42:39 »
Actually to be correct GENERAL DYNAMICS Ordnance and Tactical Systems – Canada bought out IVI years ago and make our SAA.  Yes IVI is still used because we are used to it.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2010, 19:47:47 »
Yes IVI is still used because we are used to it.

Touchee, 2 points for you  ;)

I have not yet seen a lot on the user side that wasn't still IVI, though.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,219
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #38 on: August 05, 2010, 19:49:57 »
I have not yet seen a lot on the user side that wasn't still IVI, though.

and you probably never will  :salute:
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,587,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #39 on: August 05, 2010, 20:10:19 »
Why change the base stamp when you own the company?

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2010, 11:31:34 »
On that note, any argument on calibre or ammo type is dwarfed by the elephant in the room anyway, which is "What is the USA/NATO going to do?".
That elephant is really a ghost.  While it is a great a concept, use of a NATO standard ammunition does not matter when our own pedantic ammunition safety bureaucracy will not allow us to use another nation’s SS109 ammunition now.  I saw this even in Afghanistan where Ottawa directed that Canadians could not fire US 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm – and if any generous Americans provided us such ammunition (which happened) we were to return it or send it to KAF for destruction.  I’ve also seen the same ammunition safety bureaucracy at home arguing that if we must have oversight into the QA of production and must have certainty that a lot manufactured at the extreme edge of one nations production standards is in-line with Canada’s expected parameters of SS109.  So, if we are not going to subscribe fully to the principle of common ammunition, we should not allow ourselves to be held back by the idea.  We would not be the first NATO nation to deviate from the standard for small arms ammunition (nor likely the last).

The ability to manufacture the ammunition is not a barrier either.  As was already covered in this thread, our small arms ammunition all comes from GD-OTS (Canada).  Despite the new ownership, the government ensured a condition of sale was that the company had to stay open and owed its first obligation to producing this nation’s ammunition requirements  (in fact, if you talk to the GD-OTS guys, they are very excited about the unique ability of their Quebec facilities to produce small demand ammunition at costs much lower than other facilities).

If we want to exploit the benefits of CTA or CLA, then we really have no good reasons not to be trail-blazers.  As a worst case, we find a new series of SA & MG calibre that provide improved operational capability into the foreseeable future.  At best, we become a recognized world leader with NATO subscribing to our solutions and a massive new international customer base for Canadian made ammunition.


Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2010, 11:42:50 »
So in a nutshell, you have had some experiences when the NATO standard ammunition did not work.

I on the other hand, have had experiences where it did work in a multinational environment and it proved to be very beneficial for everyone; just like the theory.

So what is better, to be able to share ammo sometimes or never?
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #42 on: August 31, 2010, 08:06:22 »
So in a nutshell, you have had some experiences when the NATO standard ammunition did not work.

I think what he's saying is that he had some experience where the NATO standard ammunition was prohibited from working due to bureaucratic regulations rather than practical ones.

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,338
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2010, 12:17:56 »
Like lots of Mk262...

 Heaven forbid the CF use a more effective round...  ::)
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2010, 12:37:27 »
Everything I have read about cased ammo seems interesting. I am betting if the brits go ahead and succeed with 40mm CTWS than maybe more nations in NATo will follow.
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,756
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #45 on: August 31, 2010, 12:55:05 »
I think what he's saying is that he had some experience where the NATO standard ammunition was prohibited from working due to bureaucratic regulations rather than practical ones.
That is exactly what I am saying.  Unfortunately, having seen the empire built on administering & managing our ammunition, I am confident that this is a policy that will not go away.

So what is better, to be able to share ammo sometimes or never?
Based on the "no non-Canadian" policy that constrains us with NATO ammunition, I would be happy to choose a new range of SA & MG ammunitions that give us greater capability over the current range of SA & MG ammunition which we can lend out but are never allowed to borrow.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #46 on: August 31, 2010, 15:47:41 »
Everything I have read about cased ammo seems interesting. I am betting if the brits go ahead and succeed with 40mm CTWS than maybe more nations in NATo will follow.

The French have been in co-development of the 40mm CTWS, so I'd bet that they'd be second to the UK to adopt it if it works out.

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #47 on: September 01, 2010, 07:33:28 »
Kevin,

Yes it is true that we don't use the Rolls Royce of ammunition, but as you know anything with an IVI stamp on it is pretty damned good for general Infantry use.  Certainly the Cadillac of bulk ammunition, anyway.

IMO (and we've discussed this before), that money is far better spent on more days on the range and more marksmanship training than giving a soldier more expensive ammo and having him fire one PWT per year, but I agree that there are some people who could certainly benefit from a closer-to-match and truer flight round.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,686
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,026
  • OBEY!
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #48 on: September 01, 2010, 10:34:18 »
IMO (and we've discussed this before), that money is far better spent on more days on the range and more marksmanship training than giving a soldier more expensive ammo and having him fire one PWT per year, but I agree that there are some people who could certainly benefit from a closer-to-match and truer flight round.
Very good point.  Even though we may have a cadillac, we need the training to get the most out of it. 
So, there I was....

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 235,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,400
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) Machine Gun
« Reply #49 on: September 01, 2010, 13:54:43 »
Very good point.  Even though we may have a cadillac, we need the training to get the most out of it.

helllooooo... I'm right here  ;D
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon