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 willur
actually I have a very good idea of what suppressive fire is and it is not ...
actually I have a very good idea of what suppressive fire is and it is not just about 30rds being more than enough there is also the consideration of logistics of an intetrim weapons system using a magazine which can not be used in another or vice-versa. Its is not ignorance and I do believe in the use of LMG in a squad or section, in relation to L85
LMG they did return L7 GMPG to the field as well because of the short fall in doctrine.
'The plan is to have the USMC buy 4100 IARs to replace 2000 of the Corps' SAWs' link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LWRC_In...utomatic_Rifle
so if this is the case in doctrine have they reduced firepower or increased it, also consider logistics in your thought and training even genectics and the concept is not a proven failure.
Well if they only replace 20% of the SAWs and those SAWs that they do replace would be a 2 for 1 with the IAR while retaining the remaining 80% of the SAWs you will see an increase of firepower not a decrease because they will have both by increasing the number of automatic weapons in the Marine Infantry squad. This I can support but not replacing all of the SAWs.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
true and is always the case, although in such cases extended conflict generate fixes in manufacture by a fluid design principle. at the moment its about money and casualties.
because of the change in fighting doctrine there is a need to supplement the firepower available to teams fighting in MOUT, so I believe 30-40 rd magazine is more than sufficent with additional need of a 100 rd drum for anything extra as belt fed is cumbersome and slow performing IA under direct fire. I had once read somewhere about USMC issuing 100 rd drum to front line for fitment to bolster the cap in current M4(truly needs heavier barrel).
If fighting is close an extra ten rounds is better than none.
if so with 30/40 rounds why waste money in developing a rifle that their current M-16/A4 can deliver. The point for SAW/LSW is deliver large amounts of volume fire. Drum magazine would be the most viable small and compact with sufficient amounts of rounds. 75 round drum magazine like the ones used by the Russian/Chinese should be good. Anything more is unessary cause the role is to pin the enemy down long enough for your allies to move into position etc.... or get out of trouble, providing cover
if so with 30/40 rounds why waste money in developing a rifle that their current M-16/A4 can deliver. The point for SAW/LSW is deliver large amounts of volume fire. Drum magazine would be the most viable small and compact with sufficient amounts of rounds. 75 round drum magazine like the ones used by the Russian/Chinese should be good. Anything more is unessary cause the role is to pin the enemy down long enough for your allies to move into position etc.... or get out of trouble, providing cover
I can't define the reason and only speculate towards the theory mainly from research. A you tube video demonstrates well some of the reasons and when or if all SAW are removed from service I don't know except they are at phase 3. and the purpose of the SAW has not been dimished and only new weapons are sort in relation to a changed doctrine. the new weapons do have fitment of heavier barrel and are easier to use whilst under stress it will be interesting to see the chosen system. Countinous operation in MOUT has changed the roles needed to be filled by the current weapon systems.
And I say again logistics, training and changed doctrine have created this need. The move towards a future warrior concept also creates a need for the weapon system to a system more able to field future improvements and remove any past problems. Yes there is shorter barrels for the SAW.
here is the link to video-
I can't define the reason and only speculate towards the theory mainly from research. A you tube video demonstrates well some of the reasons and when or if all SAW are removed from service I don't know except they are at phase 3. and the purpose of the SAW has not been dimished and only new weapons are sort in relation to a changed doctrine. the new weapons do have fitment of heavier barrel and are easier to use whilst under stress it will be interesting to see the chosen system. Countinous operation in MOUT has changed the roles needed to be filled by the current weapon systems.
And I say again logistics, training and changed doctrine have created this need. The move towards a future warrior concept also creates a need for the weapon system to a system more able to field future improvements and remove any past problems. Yes there is shorter barrels for the SAW.
here is the link to video-
i respect your thoughts and comments. but in general the american show "future weapons" gives out wrong information, and it propaganda the weapons. Its sometime sounds BS, but media is media and so is $$$. Its good show to watch, but for realiability gotta question it. I do agree replacing the M249 for squads, but for larger formation you'll need it. As for squad machine gun "SAW/LSW", use something simular to the IAR, but a magazine that holds more then your standard 30 rounds. Drum magazine like i said before is good solution, double drum magazine is just to heavey and unreliable. with secondary options of standard 30 round magazine fed.
i respect your thoughts and comments. but in general the american show "future weapons" gives out wrong information, and it propaganda the weapons. Its sometime sounds BS, but media is media and so is $$$. Its good show to watch, but for realiability gotta question it. I do agree replacing the M249 for squads, but for larger formation you'll need it. As for squad machine gun "SAW/LSW", use something simular to the IAR, but a magazine that holds more then your standard 30 rounds. Drum magazine like i said before is good solution, double drum magazine is just to heavey and unreliable. with secondary options of standard 30 round magazine fed.
I knew someone was going to post that damn video! For one SAW gunners don't carry their ammo like that just hanging down they have boxes to carry ammo. I laugh at how hey dubs the gunshot sounds to make it sound like their firing more rounds then they really are and those so called demonstrations prove nothing. Future Weapons is nothing more than a sales pitch and its extremely biased and most of the info is completely wrong and misstated and the host of the show is just a clown. I've seen a few crappy shows of future weapons but this one is by far the weakest one yet. The host knows the SAW had boxes for ammo and it can accept 30 round mags and he knows this but he lies for the show. And he clams he is a ex-Navy Seal sniper but he has never seen a SAW in combat?
Sorry but I think the SAW is better and the IAR will only complement the SAW not replace it. And Future weapons is no place to get info from.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-- Albert Einstein
Last edited by F-15 Eagle; January 19th, 2009 at 02:59 PM.
i respect your thoughts and comments. but in general the american show "future weapons" gives out wrong information, and it propaganda the weapons. Its sometime sounds BS, but media is media and so is $$$. Its good show to watch, but for realiability gotta question it. I do agree replacing the M249 for squads, but for larger formation you'll need it. As for squad machine gun "SAW/LSW", use something simular to the IAR, but a magazine that holds more then your standard 30 rounds. Drum magazine like i said before is good solution, double drum magazine is just to heavey and unreliable. with secondary options of standard 30 round magazine fed.
i know it was the quickest demostration i could find with some valid points contained, not a demostration of anything else and I do belive in certain situations using the IAR would be benificial especially if they go higher capacity but I believe and hope they do replace the SAW with a system that is capable.
My question is how many soldiers does it take to operate a SAW and does the concept of IAR remove some of this requirement also is the IAR going to replace it completely, I hope not and judging by this current rollout it doesn't.
i know it was the quickest demostration i could find with some valid points contained, not a demostration of anything else and I do belive in certain situations using the IAR would be benificial especially if they go higher capacity but I believe and hope they do replace the SAW with a system that is capable.
My question is how many soldiers does it take to operate a SAW and does the concept of IAR remove some of this requirement also is the IAR going to replace it completely, I hope not and judging by this current rollout it doesn't.
It only takes one person to operate the SAW. Though many people like to take things out of proportion and make the SAW sound like its a really really heavy weapon. As of right now the IAR will only use 30 round mags so it wont replace all of the SAWs. In fact the USMC is only planing on replacing 20% of the SAWs which is 2000 of them with 4100-4500 IARs and keep the remaining 8000 SAWs.
Though "Future Weapons" is no place to get valid points since its just a sales pitch show that is extreamly biased and gives out and/or twists the information to what they are showing off to make it sound better than it really is or to what they want it to sound like and to make money.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
It only takes one person to operate the SAW. Though many people like to take things out of proportion and make the SAW sound like its a really really heavy weapon. As of right now the IAR will only use 30 round mags so it wont replace all of the SAWs. In fact the USMC is only planing on replacing 20% of the SAWs which is 2000 of them with 4100-4500 IARs and keep the remaining 8000 SAWs.
Though "Future Weapons" is no place to get valid points since its just a sales pitch show that is extreamly biased and gives out and/or twists the information to what they are showing off to make it sound better than it really is or to what they want it to sound like and to make money.
Are you sure about the amount of Saws that they plan on keeping, also what was one of the main reasons why they want the Saw replaced.
________________
"Here, across death`s other river
The Tartar horsemen shake their spears"
the reason I asked was that it is a Squad automatic weapon that has a spare barrel and the SAW soldier only carries about 3 boxes, the time to undertake a IA is greater than a mag weapon. Although I agree in that IAR in urban warfare will offer greater firepower and attract a little less heat than the SAW Gunner as usually the Lt/sgt, SAW are the firsts poor guys that you aim to remove from action if ambushing or in a firefight.
F-15, I really think you have missed the point of the IAR, a machine gunner generally fires in 5-6 round bursts, so with a 30 round magazine you have 5-6 bursts avaliabe, assuming they use 1 burst per door or window for supressive fire, thats effectivly a whole house that they can cover with one clip, now clip three mags together, and you have 15-18 bursts, with about 4 seconds down time...You have to remember that the US got through WWII with the BAR, essentially what they want is a superlight BAR that can be handled better in urban warfare, in the forest the minimi/SAW will still be king.
Also I think your reading too much into this purchase, I think this is a stopgap measure for the current war, they will find something completly different afterwards, why not let the troops decide for themselves...Infantry Automatic Rifle can turn into Interum Automatic Rifle quite easily
Are you sure about the amount of Saws that they plan on keeping, also what was one of the main reasons why they want the Saw replaced.
he got the figures from me, I just posted an approx from internet source data the link is a few posts back and through searching I still haven't found much more on the number of replacements after this stage.
the reason I asked was that it is a Squad automatic weapon that has a spare barrel and the SAW soldier only carries about 3 boxes, the time to undertake a IA is greater than a mag weapon. Although I agree in that IAR in urban warfare will offer greater firepower and attract a little less heat than the SAW Gunner as usually the Lt/sgt, SAW are the firsts poor guys that you aim to remove from action if ambushing or in a firefight.
F-15, I really think you have missed the point of the IAR, a machine gunner generally fires in 5-6 round bursts, so with a 30 round magazine you have 5-6 bursts avaliabe, assuming they use 1 burst per door or window for supressive fire, thats effectivly a whole house that they can cover with one clip, now clip three mags together, and you have 15-18 bursts, with about 4 seconds down time...You have to remember that the US got through WWII with the BAR, essentially what they want is a superlight BAR that can be handled better in urban warfare, in the forest the minimi/SAW will still be king.
Also I think your reading too much into this purchase, I think this is a stopgap measure for the current war, they will find something completly different afterwards, why not let the troops decide for themselves...Infantry Automatic Rifle can turn into Interum Automatic Rifle quite easily
No the machine gunner will fire more than just 5-6 round bursts. Why don't they just replace the SAW with the M16 since its the same thing? Machine gunners don't fire in 1 round shots and they will definitely fire for a much longer time than a 6 round bursts. By the way this is not WWII the BAR was obsolete even by WWII standards it only had a 20 round mags and a fixed barrel so it can't be changed. Plus the recoil was unbearable full auto in 30-06 while holding it like a rifle they could bearly be accurate even with the M14 in full auto.
The IAR is no different than a M16/M4 no different at all its the same thing and a complete waste of time and money. With 30 round mags you have 2.5 seconds of automatic fire than the have to keep reloading and you only carry 90 rounds instead of 300 like you would in the SAW. As I keep saying the British tried this in the 1980s and hated it the SA80 makes a good assault rifle but not a support weapon and the Danish Army in Afghanistan are screaming for a new belt fed weapon to replace their LSWs.
The concept of the SAW is to provide a heavy volume of fire while the squad manuevors nd can still move the the squad good enough. The SAW is great at this job. The IAR is just an assualt rifle and nothing more it hardly counts as a support gunner. 30 round mags are fine for rifles such as the M16/M4 and AK-47 etc but not for machine gunners who need more than just a few 30 round mags in order to do what a machine gun needs to do that that is to SUPPRESS the enemy with a high volume of fire.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
No the machine gunner will fire more than just 5-6 round bursts. Why don't they just replace the SAW with the M16 since its the same thing? Machine gunners don't fire in 1 round shots and they will definitely fire for a much longer time than a 6 round bursts. By the way this is not WWII the BAR was obsolete even by WWII standards it only had a 20 round mags and a fixed barrel so it can't be changed. Plus the recoil was unbearable full auto in 30-06 while holding it like a rifle they could bearly be accurate even with the M14 in full auto.
The IAR is no different than a M16/M4 no different at all its the same thing and a complete waste of time and money. With 30 round mags you have 2.5 seconds of automatic fire than the have to keep reloading and you only carry 90 rounds instead of 300 like you would in the SAW. As I keep saying the British tried this in the 1980s and hated it the SA80 makes a good assault rifle but not a support weapon and the Danish Army in Afghanistan are screaming for a new belt fed weapon to replace their LSWs.
The concept of the SAW is to provide a heavy volume of fire while the squad manuevors nd can still move the the squad good enough. The SAW is great at this job. The IAR is just an assualt rifle and nothing more it hardly counts as a support gunner. 30 round mags are fine for rifles such as the M16/M4 and AK-47 etc but not for machine gunners who need more than just a few 30 round mags in order to do what a machine gun needs to do that that is to SUPPRESS the enemy with a high volume of fire.
notice the say gunner unleashing bursts down the stairs in a manner I described about 0:50 also at 2:00...What the marnies are looking for is an M16 yes, but with a heavy barrel and higher RoF in order to withstand the rigours of automatic fire, the M16 was built from the outset as an accurate semi...This is not to replace the SAW just replace it in urban cambat
Last edited by lobbie111; January 23rd, 2009 at 09:02 PM.
lobbie111, there is still the need for the SAW in urban combat because not all missions are door to door missions a lot of them take place next to vehicles or on top of buildings rooftops with 10 or more solders there firing away at the enemy during a fire fight. If you want I can post some videos of fire fights from Iraq and it shows why they need the SAW and an automatic M16 just wont do it.
Also the M16 has an automatic setting so its not just a semi auto there is a 3 round burst mode on the current M16A4 and just like the IAR it fires a couple short bursts so there is no way the USMC can successfully replace the SAW with the IAR even in urban combat.
________________
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
as usually the Lt/sgt, SAW are the firsts poor guys that you aim to remove from action if ambushing or in a firefight.
