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.

  • 3339
    MEMBERS
  • 189810
    MESSAGES
  • 10
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 505804 views.
mpopenker

From: mpopenker

19-May

gatnerd said:

I suspect 6.8 will appeal to those primarily concerned with China such as US and Australia.

one can wonder what kind of scenario this would be?

China invading mainland US? Seriously? Red Dawn, anyone?

China invading Australia?

Or both AU and US invading mainland China?

What else could be there that would need a new small arms system?

17thfabn

From: 17thfabn

19-May

njb3737

"Getting back on the subject of NGSW , what’s the chances of another NATO nation taking on the 6.8 x51 round ?

We could have a situation where the biggest NATO member the US is operating a different calibre to the rest not a good situation if a major war occurs ."

I could see other nations using the 6.8 as a sniper / designated marksman rifle. Maybe in a machine gun. 

Regardless of if the U.S. Army adopts 6.8 they will still have many 5.56 and 7.62 weapons in service. More U.S. troops MAY carry 5.56 than 6.8 if current deployment plans are carried out. 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

19-May

stancrist said:

Assuming that the US follows through and fully fields the M5 and M250, I think the chances are good that -- as happened with 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 -- the 6.8x51 will be adopted by NATO. Especially if conversion of 7.62x51 machine guns to 6.8x51 is feasible.

The thing is a cartidge being adopted by NATO is not really a thing. It can get standardised by NATO. Which is simply a procedure. This is completly unrelated to a NATO member actually adopting it.
So even if the US military adopts the 6,8 and have it standardized by the NSO and get a STANAG it doesn't mean anybody else will adopt it. Especially not quickly. Far mor likely is that everyone will wait and see if the change is actually worth it and might concider a change in the next replacement program. Which might take decades. Its basically the same as it has been with 5,56. It took decades for all NATO countries to actually adopt the cartidge and weapons that use it.

stancrist said:

Actually, since Sweden not only is reportedly planning to replace their assault rifles with battle rifles, but has shown some interest in NGSW, I would rate Sweden (and perhaps Finland, which expects to replace its assault rifles fairly soon, and has partnered with Sweden on military rifle development and procurement) as being a "definite maybe" for adoption of 6.8x51

Very unlikely. The time frame is to short. Such programs move at a slow pace and future devlopments at the time of program start are not included. If the Swedes are allready in the process of evaluating and testing chances are zero that 6,8 will be included. They will finish their program and adopt a new 7,62.
For anybody to seriously concider 6,8 it would need to have a STANAG and be adopted and fielded by the US first. Befor the start of a program.

The German military also still technically is searching for a G36 replacement. Which as by requirement should be a platform solution for 5,56 and 7,62. 6,8 is not even talked about currently. So if Germany would finish this program and adopt a new rifle/rifles these would definetly not be in 6,8 and would last for at least a decade.

With the current situation in Europe small arms have moved to the end of the wish list again. IMHO its unlikely that any major NATO member would quickly change to 6,8.

stancrist

From: stancrist

19-May

njb3737 said:

I think Sweden is looking to start fielding a battle rifle some time in 2023 so maybe too soon for NGSW.

The build for the US army and the availability of ammunition will be a factor I believe against them taking it on at this stage.

It’s looking like a 7.62n rifle AR from Sako is the front runner on this ( others on this forum may know better ). In theory nothing stopping them from re barrelling to 6.8 in the future depending on the rifles design and any changes to the round.

I have not seen a planned timeframe for fielding.  If the Swedes want to begin fielding next year, then I agree that's maybe too soon for NGSW.

However, as per your final remark above, there is the possibility of switching to 6.8x51 at some point in the future.  From the article I linked to:

"...one thing that is being looked into is the possibility of having the new rifle being modular enough to allow for potentially changing calibre later – or even mid-production as the expected production run for any new assault rifle is expected to be measured in years – in case the 6.8 mm turn out to be a game changer."

stancrist

From: stancrist

19-May

mpopenker said:

       gatnerd said: I suspect 6.8 will appeal to those primarily concerned with China such as US and Australia.

one can wonder what kind of scenario this would be?

China invading mainland US? Seriously? Red Dawn, anyone?

China invading Australia?

Or both AU and US invading mainland China?

None of those seem plausible.

The Marines are planning a redux of their World War 2 "island hopping" campaign, with the Chinese cast in the role of the Japanese.

One potential location for a US vs China conflict is the one where they actually did fight a war 70 years ago:  The Korean peninsula.

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

19-May

stancrist said:

The Marines are planning a redux of their World War 2 "island hopping" campaign, with the Chinese cast in the role of the Japanese.

first you have to find such islands, and, second, that's a fast-track solution to the WW3, because China would obviously target supporting US carrier groups, and a loss of a major aircraft carrier for the US is hardly an acceptable price, unless a massive retaliation strike is offered immediately... and then - boom. nuke time.

stancrist

From: stancrist

19-May

schnuersi said:

IMHO its unlikely that any major NATO member would quickly change to 6,8.

I agree.  For that matter, I doubt that any NATO member -- major or minor -- would "quickly" change to 6.8x51.

stancrist

From: stancrist

19-May

mpopenker said:

that's a fast-track solution to the WW3, because China would obviously target supporting US carrier groups, and a loss of a major aircraft carrier for the US is hardly an acceptable price, unless a massive retaliation strike is offered immediately... and then - boom. nuke time.

Not necessarily.  They are clearly planning on conventional war, which seems to indicate that either they don't expect to lose a major aircraft carrier, or they're willing to take the loss if it occurs.

And -- depending on the scenario -- a major aircraft carrier might not even be involved.  An Amphibious Ready Group typically consists of three ships, none of which is a major aircraft carrier.

Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

19-May

Reading between the lines, I get the impression that the concept is the Chinese try to seize islands to keep amphibious and carrier groups at bay, the Marines want to keep them from doing that. Then the Marines try to occupy islands closer to the mainland, to keep the Chinese from reinforcing any islands they are able to take.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

19-May

As someone who has been following this technology very closely for a couple decades I can with great confidence tell you that the technology to pull these off well is more than here at this point.

I understand people's skepticism though. Thankfully a bunch of the key "see thru" display technologies this stuff has been waiting on have finally arrived and the cost on them is rapidly dropping.

This doesn't mean they can't still screw it up, it just means if they do it's because they did a bad job not because they're trying to overreach what's technically possible.

TOP