gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3320
    MEMBERS
  • 188380
    MESSAGES
  • 44
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Australian NGSW   General Military Discussion

Started 5/11/21 by Gr1ff1th; 3593 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

13/11/21

gatnerd said:

I wouldn't read too much into the design beyond the fact thats its a bullpup.

It's a 3D printed mockup lacking mag release, safety selector, charging handle - and even a barrel. 

How can you tell the mockup has no barrel?

stancrist

From: stancrist

13/11/21

Judging by my personal experience with the AUG, and combat videos of Aussie and British soldiers, I don't know why magazine placement would be a real issue.

Gr1ff1th

From: Gr1ff1th

13/11/21

I was just mentioning it as the only truly unchangeable ergonomic downside, it's really a minor concern IMO, perhaps we will see a bullpup renaissance with reliable electronic trigger packs on picatinny  smart rails in the future, the layout certainly has impressive ballistic advantages when firing 80K PSI large bore cartridges, more so than it does firing conventional pressure small bore cartridges, also if i recall correctly Australia is expected to acquire TV ammo as part of their next modernization effort, perhaps their bullpup will be chambered in .277TVCM down the road

hobbes154

From: hobbes154

14/11/21

Interesting contrast with the Swedish thread:

The NGSW and associated developments have indeed been followed closely from Sweden, including being briefed directly by their US counterparts. In the end, the technological risk was judged too great for a small country to seek to join the program at this stage. 

But Australia, a slightly bigger country with a less impressive military/manufacturing industry, is not just seeking to join the NGSW program but to design and build its own equivalent? 

stancrist

From: stancrist

15/11/21

hobbes154 said:

Australia, a slightly bigger country with a less impressive military/manufacturing industry, is not just seeking to join the NGSW program but to design and build its own equivalent?

Well, Australia has a military rifle maker, whereas Sweden does not.  Perhaps that has something to do with it?

EmericD

From: EmericD

15/11/21

stancrist said:

Well, Australia has a military rifle maker, whereas Sweden does not.  Perhaps that has something to do with it?

Australia is also a member of the "group of 5" (US, CAN, UK, AUS, NZ) and Sweden is not.

hobbes154

From: hobbes154

15/11/21

Well, it's a joint acquisition with Finland and will be made there, doesn't really change the argument? 

(Did surprise me Sweden doesn't have a domestic industry any more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustafs_Stads_Gev%C3%A4rsfaktori) 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

15/11/21

hobbes154 said:

But Australia, a slightly bigger country with a less impressive military/manufacturing industry, is not just seeking to join the NGSW program but to design and build its own equivalent

I think its a mix of having Thales (which produced the pretty excellent Thales F90) plus Australia looking to solidify its military alliance (now formalized with AUKUS) with the US vis a vis an increasingly alarming China. 

Going into a more speculative aspect, perhaps Sweden / Finland feel Russia is a more 'near term' threat for them vs how Austrlia perceives the timeline for conflict with China?  In which case S/F are in more of a rush and want something they know works, now, which would be 7.62x51 with tungsten AP. 

  • Edited 15 November 2021 3:06  by  gatnerd
mpopenker

From: mpopenker

15/11/21

gatnerd said:

Going into a more speculative aspect, perhaps Sweden / Finland feel Russia is a more 'near term' threat for them vs how Austrlia perceives the timeline for conflict with China? 

I wonder if anyone with half a brain could believe that a military rifle (any rifle) would change anything during a full-scale conflict with a major military power like RU, CN, or, come to that, US or UK or AU?

If you intent on a comventional warfare, it is definitely not the case (it would be decided by much heavier equipment), see Iraq. If you plan your defensive strategy on assymetical / insurgency warfare, then again, rifle is the item of least importance, see Afhanistan.

In my humble opinion, importance of small arms is inversely proportional to the scale of conflict these days. The msaller the conflict and units engaged in it, the more important small arms become.

In a full-blown war small arms play relatively minor part, and if you suck in air force / air defence, logistics and artillery and tanks, your smalla rms are hardly relevant to your loosing the war.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

15/11/21

mpopenker said:

I wonder if anyone with half a brain could believe that a military rifle (any rifle) would change anything during a full-scale conflict with a major military power like RU, CN, or, come to that, US or UK or AU? If you intent on a comventional warfare, it is definitely not the case (it would be decided by much heavier equipment), see Iraq. If you plan your defensive strategy on assymetical / insurgency warfare, then again, rifle is the item of least importance, see Afhanistan. In my humble opinion, importance of small arms is inversely proportional to the scale of conflict these days. The msaller the conflict and units engaged in it, the more important small arms become. In a full-blown war small arms play relatively minor part, and if you suck in air force / air defence, logistics and artillery and tanks, your smalla rms are hardly relevant to your loosing the war

Absolutely true. My analysis is not that Sweden/Finlands decision makes sense, but rather I'm seeking to make sense of Sweden/Finlands decision. 

Personally, I don't see much chance or desire for Russia to be invading Finland or Sweden (much less so imminently that they can't wait for the NGSW results...) Whereas I do see some risk of shit popping off / a gross miscalculation happening in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea in the next 10 years. But in either case, small arms seems pretty small potatoes for those type of conflicts. 

Now that said, small arms are just a part (and look to be a pretty small part) of Swedens overall defense modernization. They're looking to boost defense spending by 27% from 2020-2025, spread across naval, air, electronic, and infantry forces. This is the largest boost in spending in 70 years.

https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2021/01/26/sweden-looks-to-the-past-to-prepare-for-its-defense-future/

This article claims an even greater increase is expected, a 40% boost:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/15/sweden-to-increase-military-spending-by-40-as-tension-with-russia-grows

Some of the modernization (in order of what was easiest to google, all from the last year)

https://militaryleak.com/2021/08/18/swedish-armed-forces-to-receives-first-patriot-air-defense-system-this-year/

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense_news_november_2021_global_security_army_industry/sweden_to_renovate_stridsfordon_90a_cv90a_tracked_armored_ifvs.html

https://en.defenceturk.net/saab-delivers-modernized-gotland-class-submarine/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/sweden%E2%80%99s-new-submarine-probably-world%E2%80%99s-stealthiest-184380

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/29947/France__Sweden_to_Develop_Anti_Tank_Missile_Based_on_MBDA___s_MMP_Weapon

General idea though is they are tooling up across the board based on the bad vibes in the neighborhood (plus I suspect a growing realization that the US is pushing the bulk of its forces towards Asia because of the Chicoms)

  • Edited 15 November 2021 6:32  by  gatnerd
TOP