New US SOCOM Assault rifle

A

Aussie Digger

Guest
United States Special Operations Command Announces Award for the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) to FN Herstal



MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, TAMPA, Fla. --- The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) today announced that it has awarded the contract for the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) to FN Herstal.

The USSOCOM awarded an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract after conducting a full and open competition throughout ten months beginning in January 2004. The program will provide the first 21st century modular assault rifle designed and built from the ground up for the finest fighting forces in the world. The SCAR will be made in the United States. The $634K (FY05) contract is set to begin immediately and will be managed by USSOCOM.

Troy Smith, Program Manager, Special Operations Forces, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), the center conducting the testing, said, "I am pleased to announce this partnership with FN Herstal. We announced the RFP in January 2004 and the company was selected from numerous world wide competitors in November 2004. This company has a long and successful history of designing and manufacturing weapons that make a difference, having made the Mk 46, Mk 48, the M249, M240 and the .50 Cal M2/M3 Series machine guns. The command vision of USSOCOM is to be the premier team of special warriors, thoroughly prepared, properly equipped, and highly motivated: at the right place, at the right time, leading the Global War on Terrorism, accomplishing the strategic objectives of the United States.

"We are very excited to continue that legacy with this award and the SCAR program. We have begun this at a time where world events dictate that Operators have a 21st century modular weapon. As we all know, modularity is the key to flexibility. The SCAR Heavy, especially, comes not a moment too soon -- with less weight, increased lethality, reduced maintenance and logistics burdens. I am proud to begin this relationship to help deliver a product that will make a difference in the way Operators fight."

FNH USA President and CEO Louis Dillais said, "Along the lines of its 30- year commitment to the United States Defense community, FN Herstal will fully support the SCAR program to provide the United States Operators in the field with a weapons system that meets their requirements."

Specifically, the SCAR L, a 5.56 mm assault rifle, replaces the M4A1, Close Quarters Battle Rifle (CQBR) and Mk12. The SCAR H, a 7.62mm assault rifle, replaces the M14 and Mk11. Both variants of the SCAR will have three barrel lengths. The SCAR barrel change allows Operators to best tailor the weapon for each operation, using the "standard", the Close Quarters Combat (CQC), or "sniper" barrels. These changes will affect the velocity and directly relate to lethality. Modularity also allows Operators to choose the right time for these tradeoffs. Finally, there is more than 90% commonality between the SCAR L and SCAR H versions.

The SCAR will be built at the FN Manufacturing LLC, plant in Columbia, South Carolina, which employs approximately 500 people. The Herstal Group, a 2500-person strong corporation, employs nearly 900 people in the United States. The Herstal Group has its headquarters in Liege, Belgium, the heart of Europe, and offices as well as manufacturing facilities in nine other European countries, Asia and North America.

-ends-

You can go here for a decent pic:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/ar15wyoming/SCARLight.jpg


I'll also put it in the gallery.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
I'm not sure, from what I've read though, operator advice has been greatly taken into account when designing this weapon. It is refreshing to see this kind of attitude rather than the bureaucratic, "this is what you're getting. How the hell would an operator know what he wants?" Attitude of most defence acquisitions!!!
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
i have a feeling that it's like a tradition handed down. maybe bullpup design makes the US operator feel uncomfortable since they mostly use ordinary design since training. But it is well known that bullpup design offer the extra range along with more compact size. even Israel is now using bulpup design on TAVOR.
 

VICTORA1

New Member
Hello guys,

Extra range is a function of the length of the barrell to the number of twists of the grooves inside the barrell, the explosive charge and the weight of the bullet and the bore size and other factors:confused: . I presume that extra range for a rifle automatically would mean, accuracy over a longer distance.:eek:
 

VICTORA1

New Member
Pendekar,

Engineering designs are a frame of mind. When I fist came to the U S from pakistan and went to school for my automotive engineering degree, I would ask this question as to why the japanese cars are more superior in design to the americans cars. Well, I came to the realization later on that it was not so. The american cars were as such, because the american buyer wanted them to be so. There is no such thing as a perfect design. Design faces a compromise as to what the buyer is going to buy.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
The Bullpup design itself doesn't provide extra range. What it provides is the ability to mount a longer barrel on a more compact rifle. The length of the barrel and the number of grooves/twists is the primary determinent in the accuracy of a rifle, or any firearm for that matter.


Bullpup's have their own problems though. With a Steyr for instance, the weapon has to be tilted to complete a magazine change. It then has to be corrected to aim back at the target, "traditional rifles" can be kept pointed at your target whilst you change a mag, saving a few fractions of a second before you can engage a target... In addition, the compact size of a rifle makes it less capable when conducted "butt-strikes" and also for bayonet fighting...
 

tatra

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
VICTORA1 said:
Pendekar,

Engineering designs are a frame of mind. When I fist came to the U S from pakistan and went to school for my automotive engineering degree, I would ask this question as to why the japanese cars are more superior in design to the americans cars. Well, I came to the realization later on that it was not so. The american cars were as such, because the american buyer wanted them to be so. There is no such thing as a perfect design. Design faces a compromise as to what the buyer is going to buy.
Uhm, didn't it also have to do with US manufacturers having decided that Americans wanted such and such type of cars, hence (initially) ignoring (at that time mainly cheap but particularly high quality) japanese imports. Then, the japanese wised up to the fact that US customers weren't solely interested in cheapness but also a) product quality and, perhaps more importantly, in b) service quality. In all of these developments, US car industry lagged. They still do. I mean, we got global warming coming. Sure US got strictest emission controls on passenger cars. But, hey, let's churn out some more 4x4 SUVs, with huge gas guzzling and not clean burning engines, to which these controls don't apply. 'Cuz that's what the customer wants ... nah, cuz that were the manufacturer has determined the money is and so that's where advertising goes.
sorry, ranting, off topic, will shut up now.
 

VICTORA1

New Member
Tatra,

I think we should start up a topic for engineering designs and origins. I don't think the mod would let us continue on this topic over here.
 

fraken_14

New Member
Pendekar said:
i wonder why US never adopt bullpup design?
I agree. they seem to be the futur design for most weapons. They make weapons smaller and easier to carry. Plus they make for a smaller weapon with out losing the accuracy of a longer barrel.
 

Supe

New Member
A coup for FN. (and a foreign manu too) I think this decision and feedback about this rifle will influence international Special forces in the coming years. It could be a boon for FN.

ADF recently purchased 2460 Colt M-4's for its special forces. I was a bit surprised at that. I confess to not being knowledgable about guns but I did wonder about the decision to purchase M-4's when there are newer (and you'd think superior) rifles around such as the G36 or the FN SCAR.
 

sammo

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
The current M16's are great why dont they stick with them?
well m16s are good...:unknown
but well they can allways be better thetre way to big like the sr25 but without a scope and its lower caliber.:sniper
 

TrangleC

New Member
i wonder why US never adopt bullpup design?
I guess for the same reasons why the G36 is still a rather traditional design although being "thought" and "designed through" pretty well and under consideration of modern requirements.
As far as i know one of the reasons was because bullpub designs hardly allow the usage of bigger magazines like the C-Mag:
http://www.hkpro.com/image/g36cmag.jpg
Also a longer rifle offers more space to install special equipment like grenade launchers aso.
 

LancerMc

New Member
Another important feature why bullpups weren't adopted by the U.S. Military is because of the shells were ejected close to the face. The U.S. Army has never been big on that feature, and the problem wasn't corrected until FN designed the new FN2000. It has a trap door that slow feeds out the empty shells.
 
Top