Army Interim Combat Service Rifle RFP releases.

[Averageman]

I didn't think about defilade fire from a machine gun, so yeah I guess it could be that. Wonder if the Muj get that detailed with a Dishka or PKM though (spotters and all).

If there were two or three machine guns available with commo, coordination and spotters, you can imagine the combined beaten zone.

[mig1nc]

I have this theory that they want the Mk17 to later be able to buy .264USA conversion kits without having to compete a new weapon for it at a later date, when they might possibly have a less favorable congress and administration.

But that is just my personal theory crafting.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[crusader377]

I think issuing a 7.62 NATO rifle to replace the M4 with regular infantry is a step in the wrong direction for a host of reasons many of which are listed. Instead here are some steps the right direction the Army can take.

1) Improve marksmanship training for all personnel so they can use their weapons at long range more effectively.
2) Issue one DMR per squad with a 7.62 capability and soldier with appropriate training to use it to 800M
3) Either issue an additional M240 or two in the platoons or better yet develop a lighter 7.62 LMG that is pushed squad level while keeping the two M240s at Platoon level or consolidating all M240s at company level. For the squads, something along the lines of the IMI Negev 7.62 or Russian PKP Pecheneg. Basically a 7.62 beltfed in the 17-20lb range.
4) Issue "Commando Mortars" down to Platoon level. Basically a light hand-held mortar that weighs about 15lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-4_Commando_Mortar
5) Pushing more indirect fire assets at all levels. Best way to win an infantry fight at 1000M is not by trading bullets but by throwing a 81mm mortar round, 105mm howitzer, or 155mm howitzer round at the enemy.

[BrigandTwoFour]

IMO, The major thing we should be planning for is how we are going to handle fighting in environments with non-permissive airspace.

No more drones constantly circling, ready to provide intel and a rocket on demand. No more heavy bombers at high altitude loaded with JDAMs.

We should be planning to make the squad and platoons as capable as possible. I'm not an infantry guy, so I don't know exactly what that looks like. But I agree with the above- it starts with better training that focuses on the stuff that matters.

[RetroRevolver77]

IMO, The major thing we should be planning for is how we are going to handle fighting in environments with non-permissive airspace.

No more drones constantly circling, ready to provide intel and a rocket on demand. No more heavy bombers at high altitude loaded with JDAMs.

We should be planning to make the squad and platoons as capable as possible. I'm not an infantry guy, so I don't know exactly what that looks like. But I agree with the above- it starts with better training that focuses on the stuff that matters.

You are basically stating, what kind of weapon can we field if there is no air support and no quick exit. Think Chosin Reservoir, 1950, three weeks of fighting with temperatures dropping to -35 degrees.

[BrigandTwoFour]

You are basically stating, what kind of weapon can we field if there is no air support and no quick exit. Think Chosin Reservoir, 1950, three weeks of fighting with temperatures dropping to -35 degrees.

Like I said, I don't know what it looks like. It's not that I think there will never be air support or resupply. Those will exist, but they won't be as readily available in a contested environment.

In my unprofessional opinion, I don't think any one weapon is the answer. I think it's a mixture of capabilities and the training to integrate them together effectively. Maybe that means mostly 5.56 rifles with a couple weapons teams (mix of 7.62 MG's, scoped 7.62 semi-auto rifles, light mortars, whatever). Maybe that means fielding a common intermediate caliber across all three platforms (6.5, 6.8, 7mm). Maybe it means fielding autonomous robots that don't need sleep, food, or water.

[Failure2Stop]

Beginning order will be 50,000 rifles given to front line rapid deploying units, replacing the M4.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...eased-us-army/

Has the good idea fairy struck again?

TFB is being misleading.

Here's the actual solicitation:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=1

Once the test and evaluation is concluded, the Government may award a single follow-on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) based contract for the production of up to 50,000 weapons. This estimate is subject to change.

Moving from an OTA purchase to a FAR based purchase is a whole other ball of wax as well.

[Todd00000]

I think issuing a 7.62 NATO rifle to replace the M4 with regular infantry is a step in the wrong direction for a host of reasons many of which are listed. Instead here are some steps the right direction the Army can take.

1) Improve marksmanship training for all personnel so they can use their weapons at long range more effectively.
2) Issue one DMR per squad with a 7.62 capability and soldier with appropriate training to use it to 800M
3) Either issue an additional M240 or two in the platoons or better yet develop a lighter 7.62 LMG that is pushed squad level while keeping the two M240s at Platoon level or consolidating all M240s at company level. For the squads, something along the lines of the IMI Negev 7.62 or Russian PKP Pecheneg. Basically a 7.62 beltfed in the 17-20lb range.
4) Issue "Commando Mortars" down to Platoon level. Basically a light hand-held mortar that weighs about 15lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-4_Commando_Mortar
5) Pushing more indirect fire assets at all levels. Best way to win an infantry fight at 1000M is not by trading bullets but by throwing a 81mm mortar round, 105mm howitzer, or 155mm howitzer round at the enemy.

Unfortunately the Brass has no interest in spending the money for #1, the cynic in me says this is because there are no new defense contracts in #1.
And the Brass would rather have the XM-25 than #4.

[Failure2Stop]

Unfortunately the Brass has no interest in spending the money for #1, the cynic in me says this is because there are no new defense contracts in #1.
And the Brass would rather have the XM-25 than #4.

And none of which relate to the stated purpose of the ICSR.

[Averageman]

And none of which relate to the stated purpose of the ICSR.

Well if the purpose is to defeat certain ceramic body armour's could we be chasing a technological goal who's finish line always move further forward?
It would seem advances in ammunition would be an interim fix, but 7.62 is going to still have limitations. Weight for Soldiers being one of it major issues.
When we finally do have the perfect ammunition for this hypothetical body armour, will it have an ice pick effect when it hits those without body armour?