Army Chief of Staff Testifies Before Senate Regarding New Ammo

When I hear claims that the old vets preferred the 45 to the 9mm, I think of the vets I knew. Men like my father and uncles. They had a pretty good respect for the parabellum they had faced in MP40's and pistols.
My dad was tickled pink when he traded a 22 rifle for a 9mm Radom P35, a pistol which later became my first centerfire self defense pistol.
 
Why in the world drones with MGs and rifles are not more widely in use is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It could be a number of things, probably in combination. I'll list some things as I think of them, you figure out which ones might apply, and how much...

Rifles require precision to hit. Machine guns require area saturation to be effective. Both require a (relatively) stable gun platform. And in the case of machine guns they need time on target (firing time). Aircraft, piloted or not, are difficult platforms to achieve this with. Not impossible, just difficult. Today we "easily" (read expensively) over come this with guided missiles and stabilized tracking systems that stay on target no matter what the launch vehicle does.

Range: Rifle caliber machine guns are effective to about 1km. .50cal guns can double this. Guided missiles have ranges measured in miles, often several miles.

There's a big difference between delivering several hundred or thousand(?) machine gun bullets from a distance where its possible to SEE the attacking aircraft and delivering a couple dozen pounds of high explosive from an aircraft out of visual range from the target location.

heavy machineguns, and the ammo weigh a lot. And while the ammo weight goes away when expended, the weight of the guns and mounts is a constant. SO, the aircraft has to be built to handle the weight, and the recoil. Missiles, on the other hand are rockets, essentially recoilless, and the weight penalty only applies until they are fired.

Based on what I've seen, and what I know (though by no means an expert) drones are built as "lightly" as possible to perform their mission. This has always been true of all aircraft, of course, but drones take advantage of a host of things in their strength requirements that manned aircraft cannot.

Example: aircraft have to be strong enough to survive air to air combat loads (especially fighters), drones only have to be built strong enough to carry their intended load, and fly.

And, while missiles are much more expensive than machineguns, #1 they deliver orders of magnitude more "bang" per shot. And while they are not reusable, they have the range to reduce the odds of the drone even being spotted, let alone shot down.

Missiles also offer a versatility that guns cannot. A missile could be solid shot (though that's more than a bit of a waste of money) to a warhead that can take out a bunker or a tank. Literally, a missile can range from "dropping a grenade" to "dropping a nuke" in power, depending on what warhead the EO techs bolt on the missile body.

I'm sure there's a number of important things I haven't thought of, again, no expert, but my point is that drones firing missiles offer a wide range of capabilities and advantages that drones firing machineguns do not.

Although, now I am curious about a drone built with the ruggedness and armament of a P-47 Thunderbolt......and modern engines allowing a good amount of "hang time..." Be WAAAY cool if it looked like the P-47, too..:D:rolleyes:
 
hollow point

The most recent issue of the "American Rifleman" has an article discussing what appears to be a 9mm hollowpoint round for the military. I have not read article.
 
44AMP,
Much of what you say is true, but it is as flawed as the arguments for building battleships in the run-up to WWII.
Machineguns will be as obsolete as grape-shot once this technology is in place.

Civilian scopes that overcome the stability issues have already been demonstrated for hunting. The drone operator can paint the targets and whenever the reticle is on target it can fire a single bullet with hit rates above 90%.
The drone operator may feel stressed and hurried, but not like someone actually receiving fire.
Drones can 'flank' beyond belief and at incredible speeds.
The rifle has a range of 2000M, but the drone has a range of miles.
The military has, at least based off what has leaked, put their research into heavy weapons and long ranged sniper platforms. A drone can easily get within 300 yards and take a shot from any angle. No need to use a 338 with 24 inch barrel or belts of ammo. A 10" 556 with a full mag can do a lot of damage. 300 yards and the ability to move at several hundred miles per hour give it a decent level of protection against most enemies the US faces.

The magnitudes of damage applied by the missiles is rarely limited to intended targets. It doesn't matter how many target you hit if for every target hit you spawn 5 more.

I don't think it replaces anything completely. I haven't seen much in the way of drones that look to be capable of CQB and there will always be a need for high explosives, but why rifle drones aren't being deployed in an augmented designated marksman role baffles me.
 
Much of what you say is true, but it is as flawed as the arguments for building battleships in the run-up to WWII.
Click to expand...

Ok, you lost me here. If its true, how is it flawed?

And, how was building battleships prior to WWII flawed? Because Billy Mitchel proved aircraft could sink one? I suppose looking back now its obvious, but a lot of people didn't think so then, until WWII showed how well an aircraft attack let a battleship "hold water", and the argument that aircraft weren't dangerous to a manned battleship underway, simply didn't. :D

The invention of the hand held shaped charge warhead (bazooka, Panzerfaust, RPG etc.) capable of burning through the thickest practical armor "doomed" the tank to "instant obsolescence" on the battlefield. Except, it didn't.

someday, it might, but that day isn't here, yet.

TO hold ground, will always take boots on the ground. To just kill the enemy, drones might turn out to be the very thing. Go far enough with the tech, in Scifi, the boots on the ground might be robots, remote controlled or self operating.

I admit not being well versed in drone capabilities, so I accept they can do what you say, and if so, why they aren't being used as flying snipers is puzzling. On the other hand, maybe they are being used that way, and they just aren't telling us???:rolleyes:
 
If you are going to use a robotic aerial platform to kill people, I'm thinking a C-135 with something like the laser the Navy is testing gives you many more options. An aerial robot isn't limited by the target acquistion and identification problems that plague human beings and infantry in particular. So you can start using weapon systems that are still impractical for infantry. Seems like the major limitation would be being able to kill fast enough to get all the targets given the limitations of heat.
 
As far as drone snipers using small arms or the like, you are missing a couple very critical things. The two main ones that come to mind are penetration and the ability to incapacitate.

Most warfare we see today, and why drones with missiles are preferred, is because enemy combatants are in buildings, bunkers or cover. Lets say you rig even a .50 BMG on a drone, how are you supposed to target behind cover. Obviously the rounds can go through but as people mentioned before with them being lightweight, that type of fire may be unstable. How many clear shots do you think a drone could take circling above. How much time till a clear shot is able to be taken. There really is no point.

That is why the AC-130 and the A-10 are still heavily used. The AC-130 can level buildings or even put a delayed fuse in the round that will penetrate a roof and explode inside the room taking out all combatants. Much more effective. And you are talking 25mm, 40mm and 105mm rounds that shake that massive plane. IMHO the AC-130 is a sniper, just with artillery. The A-10 has a seven barreled 30mm gun designed to take out tanks with a ridiculous rate of fire. Maybe one day these will be automated and be considered drones. We basically have exactly what you are stating, just for now, it is man powered.

There is one situation where I could see drones using small arms and that would be urban, domestic protection. Presidential rallies and such. I hope that never happens though.
 
I'm fine with drones for military use as long as a human is making the decision to kill. I do not want automated killing of any type. I don't condone any weaponized drone killing of civilians.

The current M16/m4 is fine for now. I'm also good with giving each squad a guy with a bigger rifle.
 
On the other hand, maybe they are being used that way, and they just aren't telling us???
Click to expand...
Used in this manner would be difficult to hide. They would be visible to enemy combatants.
Most warfare we see today, and why drones with missiles are preferred, is because enemy combatants are in buildings, bunkers or cover.
Click to expand...
There have been many many engagements in Afghanistan, some in Iraq, and now many in Syria where small arms drone fire would be effective.

The AC-130, A-10, relevant helicopters, etc. are of limited availability and have limits on the duration they can remain close to the fight. The US military has grown to love "precision" air strikes, but anyone who doesn't see the reputation and other damage done by many of these air strikes is a fool. We worry about our soldiers returning home with PTSD and all of its effects but seem to forget we are raising an entire generation, or two, of children who have the same disorder and, often, a hate for the US stemming from US involvement in deaths. Making it worse, their only psychiatric treatment resource is religious leaders who far too often are radicalized.

Small drones of this sort could easily be transported with infantry in vehicles and launched for short periods of time when needed, then be reclaimed by infantry and stowed until needed again.

My idea is not to replace the A-10 or AC-130, but rather supplement the infantrymen with an asset similar to a SDM. That flies at 100 MPH and can be risked without risking the lives of US personnel or at least placing them in a role with reduced risk.
It could also be used to support non-US personnel in places like Syria.

Army has had a system in development for a decade or more, but it hasn't really made much progress. It is a big machine though. Real big. My gues is it is loaded up with a really really impressive suite of sensors, electronic warfare defenses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Rotorcraft_Sniper_System
Of course most of US military drone research is funneled through Air Force and that is an Army program.
 
Last edited:
I would be shocked if the military were to move away from the 5.56 round. Think about it, it was be very expensive to buy all the new gear necessary for a new caliber (new uppers, new ammo, new optics since trajectory won't be the same, maybe new magazines etc).

The new round would have to be MUCH better than the 5.56 to even be wroth considering. If it's only a minor improvement it's just not going to be worth the massive cost

Honestly I think the biggest problem the Army has now isn't the gear, it's the training. Alot of personnel only fire their weapons once a year, to "qualify", and that's it. If they got more training on the gear they've already got, they'd be more effective.

If the military does change over to a new round that will fit in an AR-15 rifle, I think the 6.5 Grendel makes the most sense, it could probably replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
Small drones of this sort could easily be transported with infantry in vehicles and launched for short periods of time when needed, then be reclaimed by infantry and stowed until needed again.
Click to expand...
Although I'm no technical expert, a lifetime of enthusiasm about military aircraft tells me that the weight of the weapons system will likely either severely limit this drone's flight duration, or render it far less "handy-sized" than you envision.

Precisely hitting ground targets with unguided projectiles fired from an aircraft is harder than most people imagine. This is why aircraft guns intended for ground attack typically rely either on volume of fire (e.g. A-10, AC-47, B-25H) or HE warheads (e.g. AC-130). Either option makes the weapons system quite heavy.

The precision "airborne sniper" concept would likely require the aircraft to remain stationary while firing, which will make it very vulnerable to ground fire. While it's true that no pilot is directly at risk, you've just lost an expensive aircraft, and the ground troops no longer have one element of their air cover. Additionally, the ability to hover would presumably require the aircraft to be rotary-wing (inefficient), powered-lift (even less efficient), or an airship (VERY efficient, but also VERY vulnerable, and filling the envelope in the field would be a daunting logistical challenge).

IMHO the better solution is to put the targeting electronics in a drone and clobber the targets it finds with vehicle-launched TOW or Hellfire missiles, which as I understand it, the military is already doing. :) Another novel idea is to operate the drones in hunter-killer teams, with the "hunter" drone housing the targeting computers, and the "killer" drone operating in "kamikaze" fashion by crashing into targets and blowing them up. This would eliminate the need to have direct line-of-sight from a friendly ground vehicle to the target. :D
 
Any one ever watch battlestar galactica reimaged? The war drones called cylons went rogue and killed every one and humanity had to revert back to things like wired phones and non networked computers because they could hack them.
Drones can be hacked any thing on a network can. A man with a gun can't
An emp and the drone could fallout of the sky, that ar15 will still shoot
 
In WW II the .45 would not penetrate a German helmet. A 9mm would penetrate a U.S. G.I. helmet. NATO considers being able to penetrate a Kevlar helmet at specific ranges important. I remember most of the 1911's were so worn out that you had to carry them without a round in the chamber. That most of the guys hated them because they were difficult to qualify with. Lots of recoil for those not used to handguns.
Depending on your MOS you might get 8 hours of training on a handgun. It was not loved as well as some would have you believe. When the Marine Corps went to the 9mm qualification scores doubled. Really which would you rather have if your in a combat situation a gun with 15+1 or more on board? Plus one backup mag of the same round count that was easy to hit with? Or one with both mags maybe equaling one of the mags of the other pistol? And we are talking roughly what .356 frontal area versus .451?
Yeah big difference! A well place 9mm kills. A well place .45 kills. Which is easier to place well for most of our folks in uniform? And most SOF types are using 9mm's.
As to the 5.56 it was never meant for distances greater than 300 meters. It is not a Main Battle Rifle. It was decided MBR's were overpowered for actual combat after WW II studies showed most combat was within 300 meters. And most of that within 100 meters or less. If we need something different for long range use. And use in urban warfare the 6.5 or 6.8 seems to be the best compromise. Which the Brits found out after WW II. But had the 7.62 rammed down there throats by the U.S.. The wheel keeps being rediscovered again and again folks. NATO countries are jumping on the HK 416. The M4/M16 is an ergonomic masterpiece.
And a swiss army knife of adaptability. Keep the Basic M4/M16 platform. Maybe use a piston system. Throw in a 6.8 SPC or 6.5. You have no big changeover in learning a new weapons system. And the punch you need close or far. Real far .338 Lapua or .300 Magnum beats .309 as a sniper round. And you can let the guys in the rear keep the M4's since we have so many and so much 5.56 ammo. Kind of like what the M1 carbine was for. But it makes to much sense. It will never happen.
 
I am surprised the helmets would not stop the pistol rounds except possibly at a 90* angle. Head shots with side arms wouldn't seem to be enough of an issue to drive such changes anyways. I'd love to see some sort of official source on that.

Drones can be hacked any thing on a network can. A man with a gun can't
Click to expand...
Small drones like this probably wouldn't be on a "network", but they could be hacked. I'd say we have also seen quite a few instances of a person being "hacked". We usually refer to it as being radicalized. This wouldn't be a system suitable to go directly against developed nations, but developed nations tend not to fight each other directly anymore. I'm confident ISIS and Taliban lack the resources to deploy extensive anti-drone hacking support to ground troops. I suspect the Russians would hesitate to provide the technology and training.

As far as an EMP, they aren't cheap or simple and when the electronic sight systems on those rifle go down, I think their effectiveness as general issue weapons will be pretty low. Every statistic I have seen indicates they aren't that effective with all the electronics.

It used to be incredibly difficult to hit from an air platform, but that was before One-Shot and similar sighting systems. It has been tested and it works.

It would almost certainly be rotary wing. The flight time would be limited to about 30 minutes before a recharge or battery switch. Bridging the gap until more air resources are available when that does not cover the duration.

The drone would be susceptible to damage; but hitting a target, even if stopped for a few seconds to take a shot at several hundred yards with a significant change in elevation, is stretching the capabilities of many enemy combatants. If they use a guided shoulder fired missile on a small drone I think that is a victory in and of itself. The Marine Corp is using small recon drones inside small arms range, so they probably have some good info on losses. Actually, as I understand it, they are frequently using them much closer than a few hundred yards.

I would expect such a drone to require vehicular transport and take up a significant portion of an MRAV's payload. It won't be an off the shelf at micro-center drone, but there are some commercially produced quad copter drones with 30 pound payload and 30 min range for under 40K. Made in the US though a .gov contract quadruple that price. Add another 40K for carbon fiber backed kevlar armor over key components using Wald's method. Considering what is spent on some other projects and the fact that it has the potential to remove infantrymen from fire, I think it is a steal. A similar cost project to protect pilots would have been approved decades ago.

As much as I'd like to see a 6.5mm adopted, and as much as I would love it to be standard so the price would come down on a standard mass produced short action cartridge, it doesn't make any sense logistically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top