Why the USMC should not buy the "IAR"

[F-15 Eagle]

http://www.military.com/news/article...=1186032310810

According to the article above the U.S. Marine Corps plans to replace all of its SAWs with the IAR. Now I though they were only going to replace some of their SAWs but still keep most of them for greater fire power but maybe I was wrong and they are going full bore and wants to replace all of the M249 SAWs in the Corps.

I just want to point out that the IAR will only use 30 round mags and that will give only 3 seconds of automatic fire before the gunner has to reload. The M249 has 100/200 round belts and has a quick changeable barrel making it a true sustained fire weapon. In my eyes the IAR is nothing more than a rifle like the M16 and M4 and I don't see how a rifle can fill the rifle of a sustained fire weapon for suppressive fire. I think back at the British L86A2 LSW and the M16A1 when they tried this hoping that a lighter mag fed weapon easier to manuever would be better than a heaveir belt-fed weapon but it turned out to be a disater and they went for the M249 with good reason. Did the U.S. Marines forget the past? I don't see hoe they can expect the IAR to fill the role of a true machine gun.

So far it looks like the U.S. Army is not buying into this IAR concept and they will stick with the M249 SAW.

[Abraham Gubler]

The IAR will be able to use a range of 100 round magazines like the Beta-C. USMC want a lighter weapon in the hands of their soldiers. A standard M249 weighes in at 7.1kg whereas a Minimi SPW modified to magazine feed only (liekly FNH USA IAR offer) should be about 5kg. Since it will only carry 100 rounds (1.5kg) vs 200 rounds (3kg) thats a difference of 6.5kg in the soldiers arms or 65% of the current LSW (M249). That's a huge difference.

While belt feed has a range of advantages for sustaining high volumes of fire you need two soldiers to do it effectively. Moving to magazine feed enables one soldier to keep up supressive fire better than one soldier with a belt feed weapon.

Also the IAR in place of SAW move is not indpendent of other changes. Like increased use of 7.62mm GPMG in the infantery section. Every USMC section has a few of these 7.62mm belt feed MGs.

[F-15 Eagle]

Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler

The IAR will be able to use a range of 100 round magazines like the Beta-C. USMC want a lighter weapon in the hands of their soldiers. A standard M249 weighes in at 7.1kg whereas a Minimi SPW modified to magazine feed only (liekly FNH USA IAR offer) should be about 5kg. Since it will only carry 100 rounds (1.5kg) vs 200 rounds (3kg) thats a difference of 6.5kg in the soldiers arms or 65% of the current LSW (M249). That's a huge difference.

While belt feed has a range of advantages for sustaining high volumes of fire you need two soldiers to do it effectively. Moving to magazine feed enables one soldier to keep up supressive fire better than one soldier with a belt feed weapon.

Also the IAR in place of SAW move is not indpendent of other changes. Like increased use of 7.62mm GPMG in the infantery section. Every USMC section has a few of these 7.62mm belt feed MGs.

Wait I thought the Marines dropped the 100 round mag requirement and they said they only want the same 30 round mags as used on the M16/M4?

Also the SAW is a one person weapon it does not require two people to operate it.

[Abraham Gubler]

Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle

Wait I thought the Marines dropped the 100 round mag requirement and they said they only want the same 30 round mags as used on the M16/M4?

Using the STANAG well you can load any magazine that is compatible. But if the USMC stay with 30 round only I don't see it as a huge tactical issue.

Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle

Also the SAW is a one person weapon it does not require two people to operate it.

Sure but you need two people to keep the belt endless. Otherwise a belt is just a convenient way to store 200 rounds but that takes a lot more effort to change than a magazine.

As long as the weapon has a changeable barrel the difference between 30 rounds magazines and 200 round belts is not that huge. Especially if it is not being used from a tripod or a gun pit with a two man crew. This is the situation in which belt feed comes in and makes a huge difference.

[Abraham Gubler]

A closer look at the IAR requirement and this is not for LMGs but beefed up assault rifles with heavy barrels and LSW bipods but still firing from closed bolt. So I would imagine the FNH bid is a beefed up Mk 17 SCAR, H&K a beefed up HK416 and Colt with a couple of different AR-15 automatic rifles.

[F-15 Eagle]

Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler

Using the STANAG well you can load any magazine that is compatible. But if the USMC stay with 30 round only I don't see it as a huge tactical issue.

Are you saying its not an issue to put a 100 round drum on the IAR? Because 30 rounds is not enough for the automatic rifleman's role.

Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler

A closer look at the IAR requirement and this is not for LMGs but beefed up assault rifles with heavy barrels and LSW bipods but still firing from closed bolt. So I would imagine the FNH bid is a beefed up Mk 17 SCAR, H&K a beefed up HK416 and Colt with a couple of different AR-15 automatic rifles.

If its for assault rifles then they should replace the M4 with these not the M249 SAW IMO that would be a much smarter choice.

[F-15 Eagle]

What I'm confused about is that the article I gave above does not make sense because I don't remember the USMC wanting to buy that many IARs its says they want 6500 but I remeber the requirement being around 4100 IARs and they will only replace 2000 SAWs and the remaining SAWs will be kept in service for when military commanders need more firepower. This article below is older from Sept. 15 2008 but it is in much more detail and it talks about the Army as well. Which article do you find more reliable the one below or the one from my first post?

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...ne_iar_091308/

[Abraham Gubler]

Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle

Are you saying its not an issue to put a 100 round drum on the IAR? Because 30 rounds is not enough for the automatic rifleman's role.

The STANAG magazine well can load quite a few 100 round drum type magazines but 30 rounds is fine in many circumstances. The Allied Armies fought WW2 with nothing more than 30 rounds in the Bren and 20 rounds in the BAR. It depends on how you are using the weapon, even a belt feed MG will rarely fire bursts of longer than 10 rounds at a time in order not to rapidly heat the barrel with cyclic rate of fire rareluy over 100-150 rounds per minute. With a 30 round magazine there is enough rounds for four big bursts in 10-15 seconds followed by magazine change allowing a potential maximum rate of fire of 100-120 rounds per minute.

30 rounds on the gun is important especially since the IAR is to provide a light support weapon that can be carried at 'high port' for long times as required in urban CQB. This reduction in weight is what the Marines want from the IAR.

[F-15 Eagle]

Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler

The STANAG magazine well can load quite a few 100 round drum type magazines but 30 rounds is fine in many circumstances. The Allied Armies fought WW2 with nothing more than 30 rounds in the Bren and 20 rounds in the BAR. It depends on how you are using the weapon, even a belt feed MG will rarely fire bursts of longer than 10 rounds at a time in order not to rapidly heat the barrel with cyclic rate of fire rareluy over 100-150 rounds per minute. With a 30 round magazine there is enough rounds for four big bursts in 10-15 seconds followed by magazine change allowing a potential maximum rate of fire of 100-120 rounds per minute.

30 rounds on the gun is important especially since the IAR is to provide a light support weapon that can be carried at 'high port' for long times as required in urban CQB. This reduction in weight is what the Marines want from the IAR.

I guess the IAR wont replace all of the SAWs in the Marine Corps. Right now they have 13 man squads with 10 M16s and 3 SAWs and the Marine Corps times article says 4100 IARs will replace 2000 SAWs but 8000 SAWs will remain in service. What I think will happen is the 13 man squad will have 9 M16A4s(with 3 M203s) 2 M249 SAWs and 2 IARs with the IARs replacing one SAW and one M16 per squad. The Army will stick with 9 man squads with 2 SAWs and 7 M4 Carbine( 2 M203s) each.

Also although machine guners do fire in quike bursts troops like how they can fire 40 bursts with the SAW before having to reload verses only 4 with a 30 round mag.

I do think the IAR is needed in some siuations but I can't see it completly replacing the SAW in the Marine Corps just in some roles but not all of them.

[regstrup]

Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler

The IAR will be able to use a range of 100 round magazines like the Beta-C.

The danish army bought the Diemaco LSW with the Beta-C mag. It may work on the shootingrange, but it will not take much dust in the field, before it malfunctions. And it is a damn shame to have 30-100 rounds stuck in a mag, which you just cant unload without taking it apart, so you can use the rounds in a normal mag.

So the danish soldiers do not use the Beta-C mag in Afghanistan on their LSV because of the above problems, but stick to the 30 roundmags, because they dont malfunction very often compared to the Beta-C. So the LSV is nothing more than a heavier M-16 with bipod and a heavier barrel.

The danish soldiers are screaming for a beltfed supportweapon like the Minimi or the H&K MG4 instead of the LSV, so I dont hope, that the Marines make the same mistake.

[Abraham Gubler]

Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle

Also although machine guners do fire in quike bursts troops like how they can fire 40 bursts with the SAW before having to reload verses only 4 with a 30 round mag.

Well if you are going to compare a 200 round belt and a 30 round magazine you might as well do so with equal rounds per burst. Which is 40 burst of 5 rounds and 6 (not 4) of 5 rounds.

The belt is great until you have to change it. One man belt changing really takes you out of the battle. While 30 round magazines mean you have to change more often it is a very simple task compared to a new belt. In urban CQB the lower risk of each magazine change is more manageable than the time a LMG is out of action changing the belt.

As to F-15's USMC squad TO&E each squad has three fire teams. Each fire team a single LSW. The USMC press release on the recent IAR contract award said, "The IAR seeks to enhance the automatic rifleman's maneuverability and displacement speed while providing the warfighter the ability to suppress or destroy those targets of most immediate concern to the fire team."

So it would appear that the IAR will replace each SAW in each fire team. Each USMC rifle company also has a weapons platoon with several 7.62mm M240G GPMGs.

[Chino]

Originally Posted by regstrup

The danish soldiers are screaming for a beltfed supportweapon like the Minimi or the H&K MG4 instead of the LSV, so I dont hope, that the Marines make the same mistake.

Buy the Ultimax 100.

[F-15 Eagle]

Originally Posted by regstrup

The danish soldiers are screaming for a beltfed supportweapon like the Minimi or the H&K MG4 instead of the LSV, so I dont hope, that the Marines make the same mistake.

I hope they don't make that mistake ether, it will be the stupidest idea in the history of the USMC. They might use this weapon for a shot time but soon they will wake the hell up and go back to the belt fed support weapon design.

Automatic rifles are dead in the water they are next to useless and its not WWII anymore this is the 21st century.

Several countries including the U.S. and the U.K. have tried this before and it was a proven failure even a disaster. 20/30 round mags should only be a backup option not a primary feed source.

[DavidDCM]

Originally Posted by Chino

Buy the Ultimax 100.

I love the elaborated style of your well-founded and finely thought out arguments...

Happy Christmas

---------

Is their any feedback from the Marines themselves toward the IAR-programme? Are they waiting for this weapon to arrive in frontline-service or are they frightened of the day they'll have to rely on it when in combat? I read lots of personal opinions in this thread, but how about the users themselves. What was the reasoning behind this weapon at all, if not a demand from the Marines for exactly such a weapon?

[Chino]

Hehe...Happy Christmas to you, too.

No, I have many passionate arguments in favour of the Ultimax. You may get tired of hearing them. But since you asked...

It's a long read, but I hope you find this thing that I put together worth reading:

Ultimax 100's and the USMC

1982
Ultimax was first introduced to US military during the SAW trials. It was still prototype stage undergoing troop trials in Singapore.

The Minimi won. US military begins universal adoption of Minimi as M249.

However, USMC had very good things to say about the Ultimax during the SAW trials regarding its accuracy, light weight and controllability.

1983
Ultimax passes troop trials in Singapore and begins production as the Mk 2.

1983
Gen Paul Kelly of the USMC agreed to a further demo of the Ultimax by CIS (today STK). CIS understood the chance for sales to US is zero since all money had gone to Minimi procurement. According to this article:

- Singapore Straits Times 1983

the demo at Quantico was a declared a great success and Gen Kelly had good things to say. This was just before Gen Kelly became the 28th commandant of the USMC (1983 - 1987).

Also present were representatives from many other countries.

1986
3-yrs later (Gen Paul Kelly still commandant of USMC), the US Navy SEALS bought 20 Ultimax to begin 2-yr ops trials according to this article from International Defence Review:

- International Defence Review 1989 - part
- International Defence Review 1989 - part



1986 - 1988
SEALS trial.

1989
Product Improvement Programme (PIP) based on SEALS feedback results in production of Ultimax Mk 3.

Same IDR article also alleges that some of these PIP Ultimax Mk 3's will be supplied to SEALS. Unconfirmed whether this 2nd sale to SEALS actually took place.

By now, more than 10 other countries are Ultimax users - albeit small countries, and using the Ultimax in small numbers.


2005
23 years after adoption of Minimi, USMC calls for replacement of the Minimi.

But USMC also wanted the replacement in a hurry as evidenced by the title of its "call for entries" in Jul 2005 titled "Non-developmental, 5.56mm, Infantry Automatic Rifle"

To me the specs almost fit the Ultimax to a "T". Instead, 3 years later after a lot of "development", it looks ike USMC will have nothing more than a souped-up assault rifle like the Diemaco LSW or the Colt HBAR tested and rejected more than 30 years ago.

...


So what does this say about the Ultimax?

One way is to say that since it has failed in US trials every time, why should the Danes consider it?

Another way to look at it is that despite having failed to be selected in the 80's, the USMC had a good enough impression of it to look at it again 3rd time round.

I would like to think that the Ultimax failed more because of the complexities of US procurement process than for any other reasons.