This is a discussion on Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR" within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Chino
Going slightly off-topic, the only good thing IMO about the M249 vs Ultimax is that with ...
Going slightly off-topic, the only good thing IMO about the M249 vs Ultimax is that with a belt-feed, you have no empties to lug around.
I have pictures of the Ultimax rig for carrying 4 spare drums. Not fun to carry, and look like a bit of work to just get the new drum out, and then put the empty drum back in. With this scenario, I can see why 30rd mags, despite its limitations, may still be best for the assault role.
For the assault role yes but the machine gunner role ah not so much.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
Sorry to revive, but I've taken somewhat of an interest in the IAR.
Anyways, some updates to the developing IAR platform:
FNH, Colt, and H&K were selected as the finalists for the IAR platform, each receiving development contracts. FNH's entry is basically a scaled up SCAR which can operate from an open or closed bolt. Colt's offering is a scaled up M4A1, still using direct gas impingement. Lastly, H&K's entry is a scaled up 16.5 inch barrel HK416.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, H&K's IAR was selected. The Colt IAR uses direct gas impingement and thus would have the same reliability issues of the M16 platform, and the SCAR has different ergonomics than the M4/M16 platform in service, looks different (enemies could identify a soldier carrying a different weapon than the rest of the fire team), and also the HK416 was selected over the FN SCAR-L by the JSOC while the rest of SOCOM is fielding the SCAR-L. The H&K IAR has similar ergonomics to the M4/M16 platform and thus will not be a huge change for those using the IAR, but it also uses a gas piston system which generally has less reliability problems than direct gas impingement.
I myself am fairly excited about the IAR entering service. I think it actually has a role in a fire team as a weapon which can lay down suppressing fire when necessary but also can be used similarly to a normal combat assault rifle and be almost as mobile as one too. Also, there have been developments on a 100+ round drum/dual drum magazines, such as this one from Armatec: defense review.com/armatac-saw-mag-also-written-sawmag-150-shot-double-drum-magazine-for-usmcs-hk-iar-infantry-automatic-rifle-for-mobile-infantry-fn-m249-sawlmg-look-out (remove space between defense and review, apparently I can't post links until 10 posts made) . Interestingly, the article title states "FN M249 SAW/LMG Look Out!". My impression was that the IAR would supplement the SAW from what I've been reading, however, a magazine-based replacement of the SAW wouldn't be too bad an idea in my opinion.
Anyways, through reading the last 12 pages of discussion, I wanted to discuss and debate some of the comments made:
F-15 Eagle, you constantly state that 30 rounds isn't enough. While that may be true in some extenuating circumstances, a 30 round magazine being fired in bursts should be just fine for suppressing fire. For example, with 5 round bursts, it would go like: burst, burst, burst, burst, burst, burst, magazine reload, burst, burst, etc. Reloading a magazine is much easier than replacing a belt or having an assistant constantly adding on more segments to the belt.
Also, you state the need for volume of fire, yet in many posts you seem to be praising the Mk.46 Mod.0 as a replacement for the current FN Minimi/M249 SAW. You do know what the Mk.46 Mod.0 is, right? The Mk.46 Mod.0 is a smaller version of the current FN Minimi/M249 SAW in service right now: world.gu ns.ru/machine/mg17-e.htm (remove spaces again). The Mk.46 Mod.0 wouldn't solve any mechanical problems that the SAW has in exotic environments (IE, desert environments) right now because it's the same gun, just with a shorter barrel and no magazine feed capability, which leads to my next point. The barrel of the Mk.46 Mod.0 is just about 16 inches long (406mm, rough conversion 2.54:1 cm:inch ratio=15.98 inches) rather than the usual 18.3 inch barrel on the M249. Smaller barrel=less ability to sustain fire no? So why do you support using the Mk.46 Mod.0 as a SAW replacement? Not to mention less accuracy and muzzle velocity which leads to reduced range. Lastly, the H&K IAR has a 16.5 inch barrel and is magazine fed. Thus, it has similar (well, even longer) barrel length to the Mk.46 Mod.0, sounds like similar capabilities, no? Furthermore, the H&K IAR is magazine fed, the M249 can be either magazine or belt fed, and the Mk.46 Mod.0 only has belt feed capability (no mag feed for reduced weight). With new dual drum magazines coming out with 100+ round capacity (like the one I linked earlier in my post), it may be beneficial to carry magazines rather than belts. As belts are far more unwieldy and take much longer to reload (or have an assistant attaching additional ammo onto the current belt). Replacing the SAW currently in service with the Mk.46 Mod.0 doesn't seem like a smart idea to me, even in terms of what seems to be your primary parameters for a LSW, volume of fire, the Mk.46 Mod.0 will not offer as much volume of fire as the current SAW. Furthermore, reduced accuracy and range, and the same reliability problems make it tough to recommend the Mk.46 Mod.0 as a SAW replacement.
the SCAR... looks different (enemies could identify a soldier carrying a different weapon than the rest of the fire team),
I've heard this argument many times. Can you point me to a reliable source that proves "looking like the M16" is an official requirement? Or is it an argument that everybody just repeat so much they believe it to be true?
Because if this was an official requirement, they would have stated it in the RFP and the FN IAR and the Ultimax IAR would not have wasted everybody's time entering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
...the SCAR has different ergonomics than the M4/M16 platform in service...
How different is the FN SCAR's ergonomics in your opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
Also, there have been developments on a 100+ round drum/dual drum magazines, ... ...a magazine-based replacement of the SAW wouldn't be too bad an idea in my opinion.
Look at the bulkiness of that 150rd dual drum.
It's a joke. The IAR is not intended to be a static bullet hose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
F-15 Eagle, you constantly state that 30 rounds isn't enough.
Actually, if you are firing bursts, 30rd mag is not quite enough.
But that's why the USMC insists that the IAR is capable of aimed semi-auto fire when FA is a waste of ammo.
A larger capacity box mag that is still compact, will be the best solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
For example, with 5 round bursts, it would go like: burst, burst, burst, burst, burst, burst, magazine reload, burst, burst, etc
How many 5rd bursts have you fired? Because with a light hand held or even bipod/gripod mounted rifle, the third rd will already quite some ways off target.
Unless, of course, you are using the Ultimax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
As belts are far more unwieldy and take much longer to reload (or have an assistant attaching additional ammo onto the current belt).
Do you have experience with either (belt or drum)?
For the assault role yes but the machine gunner role ah not so much.
The USMC IAR, is not intended to be a "machine gun".
Nor the Ultimax in SAF service. Though it is built as a LMG, in practice we used it more like an IAR. Plus we have the GPMG in the support role which will always trump any 5.56 LMG and well worth the weight it burdens you with.
Seems like a good idea to me, 100 round drums are easier to load, and thus, reload, which does two things. One, it takes out the loader out of the equation, as of right now, you need 2 dudes to maintain a constant, stream of sustained fire from a M249. However, with the iAR, you can just spray the said 100 rounds, maneuver to a different position, reload your IAR whilst maneuvering, and then, pour another stream of lead. Also, one could point on that because you wouldn't need another guy to maintain your belt, he could also be carrying his own IAR, and pouring lead down.
The H&K IAR has similar ergonomics to the M4/M16 platform and thus will not be a huge change for those using the IAR, but it also uses a gas piston system which generally has less reliability problems than direct gas impingement.
I think it actually has a role in a fire team as a weapon which can lay down suppressing fire when necessary but also can be used similarly to a normal combat assault rifle and be almost as mobile as one too.
In my humble opinion this "IAR" should be taken for what the rifle seems to be. It looks like a more reliable, maybe a bit more accurate, and a bit heavier "M4" which should be able to sustain automatic fire better and send out the bullets with a bit more energy. It is in some ways a compromise between the M16A4 and the M4 fitted with a piston design and a heavy profile barrel. Thus it should be suitable for accurate, fast single fire and also be better able to sustain automatic fire then the current infantry weapons (M16, M4) of the US forces.
In short it just might fit the bill to become the new MC standard infantry carabine/rifle.
Firn
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
Seems like a good idea to me, 100 round drums are easier to load, and thus, reload, which does two things. One, it takes out the loader out of the equation, as of right now, you need 2 dudes to maintain a constant, stream of sustained fire from a M249. However, with the iAR, you can just spray the said 100 rounds, maneuver to a different position, reload your IAR whilst maneuvering, and then, pour another stream of lead. Also, one could point on that because you wouldn't need another guy to maintain your belt, he could also be carrying his own IAR, and pouring lead down.
In theory it sounds very good, but in the dusty combat inviroments like Iraq and Afghanistan it will not work. The day, that a reliably 100 drum magasin is invented, it might work.
The danish army tried it with the Dimaeco LSV and the Beta-C mag, which worked on the shooting range, but in the field the Beta-C proved inreliably and instead of being able to shot 100 shoots without changing mag, you stood with a mag jammed with 50-80 shoots, you couldn't use............NICE
So the danish army is looking at a belt feed LSV for their infantrysquad. Wether it is going to be 5.56 or 7.62 is still to been seen. Until then, they use their MG3, eventough they are very heavy and outworn. But they work !!!
Sorry for not quoting, but quotes are long, and multiquotes are a pain to do.
Looking like M16, not a requirement obviously. Is it a bad thing? No, looks like M16, handles like M16, I'd say that's a plus.
Never handled the SCAR myself, but it's a different gun, it is different to handle, however slight it may be, the SCAR is nowhere near as similar to the M16 as the HK416.
That 150 round dual mag looks bulky to you? Having 150 rounds in a belt doesn't seem like it'd be much less bulky. It's not supposed to be solely a bullet hose, but since it is a LSW it should have the capability should the need arise.
30rds not enough for burst? So I guess that means we should make all assault rifles semi-auto only right?
I have fired quite a number of five round bursts. Obviously even the second round will be a bit off target because of the recoil. But this is suppressing fire, not accurately sniping the enemy with bursts. Also, you seem to take a liking to the Ultimax, just a observation from the past 12 pages. Never tried it myself, so cannot comment on it.
Yes, I have experience with belt and drum. Are you really saying it takes longer to reload a dual drum magazine compared to a belt?
@Firn, I realize. It's basically the standard combat assault rifle with more capability to lay down suppresing fire if the need arises. It seems like a more versatile, more reliable, yet heavier version of the M4/M16 which can be used to supplement the SAW in suppressing fire if necessary.
Anyways, the issue of drum magazines, the USMC has commented that they are being looked into and developed. I know the Beta C-Mag has been less than impressive in terms of reliability, but that's just one drum magazine.
Looking like M16, not a requirement obviously. Is it a bad thing? No, looks like M16, handles like M16, I'd say that's a plus.
That was not my point of my question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
Never handled the SCAR myself, but it's a different gun, it is different to handle, however slight it may be, the SCAR is nowhere near as similar to the M16 as the HK416.
No doubt, but again, the point of my question is "how different" ergonomically-speaking? Will these differences be very detrimental to an IAR gunner who WILL obviously receive training on said weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
That 150 round dual mag looks bulky to you? Having 150 rounds in a belt doesn't seem like it'd be much less bulky. It's not supposed to be solely a bullet hose, but since it is a LSW it should have the capability should the need arise.
Question: is the IAR supposed to replace all SAWs? Because that seems to be where you are heading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
30rds not enough for burst? So I guess that means we should make all assault rifles semi-auto only right?
It is not "quite enough" was what I said.
You can take this and twist it any way you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
I have fired quite a number of five round bursts. Obviously even the second round will be a bit off target because of the recoil. But this is suppressing fire, not accurately sniping the enemy with bursts.
IOW a complete waste of ammo?
Even suppressing fire need a degree of accuracy to be effective. How loosely that is interpreted is up to the individual.
If I make a guess, it'd have to be impacting within 2m of the target. Will a HK IAR be able to achieve this at 50m, 100m, 300m?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
Yes, I have experience with belt and drum.
So what can you share with us from your experience?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
Are you really saying it takes longer to reload a dual drum magazine compared to a belt?
No. I'd leave that to a trained MG gunner who has experience with both system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy01741
Anyways, the issue of drum magazines, the USMC has commented that they are being looked into and developed. I know the Beta C-Mag has been less than impressive in terms of reliability, but that's just one drum magazine.
IMO 50, or 75rd drums sounds more reasonable for the IAR role.
@Firn, I realize. It's basically the standard combat assault rifle with more capability to lay down suppresing fire if the need arises. It seems like a more versatile, more reliable, yet heavier version of the M4/M16 which can be used to supplement the SAW in suppressing fire if necessary.
IMHO the M27 is pretty similar to the Berettas and H&Ks already in use as standard assault rifles, the only really big differences seems to be the slightly heavier barrel profile. Perhaps they get issued with a Grip which can also be deployed as a light bipod.
With less heat-built up (piston design) in the bold area and a heavier front due to the weight of the piston design and the heavier barrel automatic fire should be easier to control and sustain then an M4 with the same "Gripod". Of course a certain degree of accuracy should still only get achieved with pretty short burst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chino
IMO 50, or 75rd drums sounds more reasonable for the IAR role.
A reliable, not too clumsy 50-60 rounds mag could be already a good step forward. We will see how the MC integrates this new weapons into the squads. Their new ammo begs quite some legal questions, but I have little doubt that it will be welcomed on the sharp end.
Firn
________________
"The first criterioun in war remains decisive action. Everyone, from the highest commander down to the youngest soldier, must constantly be aware that inaction and neglect incriminate him more severely than any error in the choice of means.
The M27 to me looks like an attempt to get a new assault rifle to replace the M4/M16 in order to get past all the politics.
The debate on an auto rifle vs a machine gun will continue to go on and whether or not the M27 with a 30 round mag is enough to replace some of the SAWs remains to be seen.
I still firmly believe is most situations a belt fed machine gun is better than a rifle for suppressing fire, unless if the fire team is moving fast and they need something lighter than the auto rifle is better it just depends on the mission and circumstances. Thats why I think the USMC is only replacing 2000 or so SAWs and keeping the remaining 8000 plus there is the M240 as well.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
