Upgrade kits for M4 coming in 2011, XM2010 Sniper rifle, and new Uniform

**jwfuhrman** · 10-18-10, 17:03

http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/10/16...eadline-title2

Sounds like they aren't in a big hurry to field a replacement for the M4 if these upgrade kits are coming out next year.

Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for Soldier Weapons, said the Army will do a request for proposal in the next three or four months to complete the Army's acquisition objective for M4 rifles. That RFP will include more than 14,000 M4A1 rifles -- an improvement over the M4 Soldiers currently use.

"What the M4A1 gives our Soldiers is a heavy barrel and fully automatic -- that's what the field is asking for," Tamilio said. The M4A1 also features ambidextrous controls.

The Army already has a contract with Colt to produce the rifles. The second contract, in the next fiscal quarter, will help the Army complete its AAO and will include additional rifles for both foreign military sales and to meet other Army requirements. Tamilio also said the Army will work a contract to procure some 65,000 kits in FY 2011 to convert M4s already in the field to the M4A1.

Other phases of M4 improvement involve a better bolt and rail.

"I think we can get significant increases in reliability by looking at some new enhancements to bolts," Tamilio said. "Because a lot of companies have shown some bolts over the last year or so that have got, we think, improvement. We're going to ask industry to give us their best."

**5pins** · 10-18-10, 20:26

I wonder what bolts they are talking about?

**DaBears_85** · 10-18-10, 21:01

This is very intriguing, thanks for posting. So this means 'Big Army' finally came to their senses and decided not to replace the M4, or is this just a "patch-up" of sorts until they can get their successors fielded?

I'd be really interested to see what they do with the rail system. I doubt they're going to ditch KAC's two-piece design, but rather request a lighter rail with a slimmer profile.

Originally Posted by 5pins

I wonder what bolts they are talking about?

I wasn't even aware there was a problem with the current bolt. Am I missing something?

**Magsz** · 10-18-10, 21:13

Why the request for more automatic weapons?

**RogerinTPA** · 10-18-10, 21:26

Originally Posted by Magsz

Why the request for more automatic weapons?

That's what I don't get. I can envision everyone using these as SAWS and wasting ammo. Upgrade SOCOM's with the heavy barrels and use the rest of the money to send every swinging Richard in an Infantry unit back to the range for tactical shooting. The issue has been and always will be training.

**jwfuhrman** · 10-18-10, 22:43

what they need to do is upgrade to Mid-Length, 16in SS410 barrel BC1.0, 1-4x24 optic, A5 stocks and more effective training. Plus make MK262 Mod 1 standard issue for Rifles/Carbines

Every Soldier will be effective from 0-500

but that just makes sense....

**ryanm** · 10-19-10, 04:14

Originally Posted by jwfuhrman

what they need to do is upgrade to Mid-Length, 16in SS410 barrel BC1.0, 1-4x24 optic, A5 stocks and more effective training. Plus make MK262 Mod 1 standard issue for Rifles/Carbines

Every Soldier will be effective from 0-500

but that just makes sense....

Sorry, have to disagree. The SS barrel was a bad idea in Vietnam, would still be a bad idea today for common unit issue item. The BC1.0 would not make that much of a difference, and if anything, we should be looking at a standard issue suppressor setup instead of a better birdcage (ala AAC MITRE mount/system with zero POA/POI shift). (reference my training issues pointed below for more detail)

The 4x optics are already out there (ACOG), 1-4x would increase the headaches at a unit armorer level because they WILL get fiddle-f'd up in the field and by fobbits. "OH LOOK!! Something shiny!!!". For the masses, you need to keep it simple. There is a reason you don't see Spectres as standard issue items.

Plus, I don't think any variable power optic out there can withstand what ACOGs or Aimpoints go through. There are just too many moving parts/things to go wrong. There are also training issues associated with introducing something like a variable power optic. Much harder to train the masses on the details of marksmanship vs. teaching hold overs and BDC reticles.

The ACE Hammer would be an additional capability as a breaching tool or weapon. I doubt ACE's ability to produce 14K stocks in any kind of acceptable time frame. Highly doubt VLTOR could bring 14,000 A5 kits out in a timely manner either.

Mk262mod1 is good ammo, but should be sent via 18" barrel. The Mk318 would probably be a better choice for two reasons. One is it has been designed as a barrier penetrating round and two, the BDC reticles that are setup for 62grain won't need new prisms for 14,000 ACOGs.

Hope I'm not starting a war on with you on this, not my intent.

Just consider that every part of a weapon system that ends up in the field has an accompanying unit supply and training requirement. Anything that represents a paradigm shift has orders of magnitude in complication and expense as it filters down the chain from decision to implementation.

**ryanm** · 10-19-10, 05:12

extra two cents... When the Army implements new systems, the bottom line should come down to two key points of value (ROI if you will)

1. Does this system result in more dead bad guys?
2. Does this system result in fewer friendly casualties?

Its hard to justify anything if it can't do one of those two things.

Signature reduction is already a proven force multiplier

Full-auto, while it does waste ammo--also provides a limited automatic rifleman capability to every member of the squad with an M4A1.

From there you have to decide if the increased cost to the supply chain is going to support the ROI. Producing systems that increase the failure rate of a system has a negative impact on the unit's readiness.

Part of the reason SoF gets so many of the toys, is not just a matter of funding--you’re looking for those extra one and two percentile advantages. The cost ratio of one SoF vs. one Infantryman is substantial. Don't kid yourself when it comes down to the dollars and cents being factored into these types of decisions. Its like Ford and Chevy choosing not to fix exploding gas tank issues. They determined it was cheaper to pay for the deaths than a recall.

The same type of logic comes into play with defense spending. It’s a sad but true reality of modern warfare. We're still one of the best equipped forces on earth and current generation 11Bs are substantially revalued vs. previous conflicts.

If you look at the number of supporting personnel required to field just one infantryman, that one meat eater represents a significant investment in time and material. However, that one infantryman vs. the training value/expense of one SoF soldier is a radically higher ratio. You can turn and burn Infantryman into a conflict in matter of months. SoF forces take years to develop to fully functional assets and then require significant investments in R&D for equipment and follow-on training to retain that edge/capability. Almost any and every edge that keeps a SoF operator alive longer or results in a higher kill ratio is money with real RoI attached.

That same money when expended on a "Big Army" scale does not always follow.

An example of how that might work is thermal optics, putting one in the hands of every 11B on a front line would be cost prohibitive in terms of the advantage the optic delivers. However, at the small unit level with high value/limited scope scenarios that capability might be the difference between mission failure or success. Here is where all those extra percentiles start adding up.

Another way to look at that situation would be is it more cost effective to buy something like an Apache vs. increasing the capability of an Infantry unit? In the ultimate scheme of things, every component has its own value/detractions. In some cases, the value inherent to Infantry is having boots on the ground at a lower cost than say moving in armor. The level of asset that needs to be committed to maintain/hold the mission objective with the least cost while still being flexible to maneuver is part of the complexity.

It would be great if every infantryman had all the same gear options as a SEAL, had A10s and AH64s for CAS 100% of the time and could call in MLRS on any target on a the battlefield. The reality is even with the economic power of the United States, we cannot maintain that level of integration to every unit at all times in support of every mission.

Every unit has to compete for resources, which ultimately comes down to how much does it cost in dollars and cents. Sometimes those dollars and cents can get blood stained.