LSAT Program

i think it's been a goddamn decade without any notable results

>>33367346

What the fuck is Textron and why are they trying to re-invent the wheel?

That shit looks like Legos...

>>33367417
it took a few hundred years for people to cram powder into metallic cartridges
now we are using plastics to replace the metal part of the cartridge, thats pretty revolutionary to be honest

How long do they think five mints will last?

Look at the finish on that prototype, just look at how expensive it is, I bet the upper handguard is cast alloy. Fucking Americans and their reserve currency monopoly money, no-one else can be so wasteful.

File: LSAT_2.gif (69KB, 800x596px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x596px

What the fuck are they even doing anymore, if the cartridge is already finished why don't people just start designing guns around it, the stats seem pretty revolutionary atleast.

File: 4.73x33_Caseless.jpg (206KB, 940x1198px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 940x1198px

>>33367620

>HK develops "no case" 4.73x33 ammo to go with the G11 decades ago.
>Plastic replacing brass for case material "revolutionary"

It isn't revolutionary - it's being cheap as fuck. Copper is expensive. Which means brass is. Which means ammo costs, especially when you get into a war and are burning up great piles of it...

Which wouldn't be such an issue if we hadn't adopted Star Wars Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy training. What is the round count up to now? Half a million reounds expended for every dead Haji?

Don't fix the problem of burning up great mountains of ammo for very few dead Hajis... No, you replace brass cases with plastic. Now you can extrude billions of them on the cheap...

I know I'm a cynical, grouchy old crab... and I know it colors my comments... but I really don't see a need for that pile of Legos, so much as a need for modifying our training and doctrine...

I see it more as a liability - cheaping out on possibly the most critical element a warfighting military needs - quality, reliable ammo.

>>33367651
That looks like it's been rattle canned with some appliance epoxy dude.

$5

>>33367651
Wanna see something mindblowing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7JqXbm-Nwo

>>33367767
Getting rid of cases reduces the volume and weight of ammunition considerably you fucking mongoloid.

>>33367767
>what is covering fire
>what is unholy amounts of squashed down panic making a man's hands shake
>what is requiring multiple hits to take down a target
>what is multiple people seeing and firing upon the same target
>what is prisoners of war
>there is no possible way that the many, many, many factors that create a >1:1 rounds expended:dead sandnigger could possibly add up in such a massive way, I mean it's not as if the objective here is the capture of cities and capture of terrorists instead of the absolute extermination of the enemy
>lol how do I war

LSAT is pointless, the next gen will be caseless airbursting grenade launchers for everyone

>>33367929

>saves weight

Anyone who has been downrange more than once knows they lighten one thing only to hang more useless shit on you somewhere else. Changes are not motivated or undergone with the best interests of the rank and file in mind...

>New tech always has bugs - unforeseen ones both minor and critical.

I'm nobody's crash test dummy. I have no problems with the advance of technology, but I'm not so blinded by New Shiny Shit that I am willing to spend lives downrange fielding anything that still has issues...

You want to risk your life with this shit downrange instead of using already existing, proven systems? Be my guest.

>>33367346
Gun looks like shit. I wonder if there is too much internal volume in that square tube.
Skeptical on pivoting chamber.

>>33368033
They did it with the m16 and a ton of other stuff.
The pentagon doesn't care about peons dying, sorry.

>>33368054

I know... and I agree.

My first issue weapon when I was a wee babby Private was stamped XM16E1... the "XM" stood for "experimental model".

It was old when I got it, but still serviceable when we went to the A2 a couple years later...

We are now on the A4 variant. The Stoner plaform is about as de-bugged and modded as we can make it. Yeah, it's long in the tooth, but it is a known quantity and the rank and file have confidence in it...

That 5 sided wind tunnel... please don't get me started.

Weapons contracts are not awarded/weapons adopted because someone somewhere had a sudden attack of civic virtue and decided to build a damn fine weapon that would benefit grunts...

Only exception to that would be the 1903 Springfield... reading Hatcher, one gets the feeling that the goal was to produce the finest battle rifle on the face of the Earth not to enrich arms manufacturers or do political favors, but to ensure those who needed the best actually had the best...

>>33367805
Epoxy is a suitable coating for cast alloy, don't want the wheelchair look.

But the plastic - the barrel release handle and the pistol grip. Only part that might be a little off is the charging handle and that thing next to it (socket for vehicle mount?)

>>33368033
>lighten one thing and add others
How is that a bad thing? Being able to carry things instead of ammo, including more ammo, is good.

>they're not making things better for soldiers
Quit being autistic, the main goal of the LSAT and G11 included reducing weight of ammunition carried so that more ammunition could be carried.

>>33367961

>strawman
>reductio ad absurdum

In point of fact, I never said there needed to be a 1:1 ratio for every dead Haji, nor did I discount other factors.

YOU did, then pretended I did so you could mock me with this infantile dog shit:

>lol how do I war

I'm thinking at this point, you don't know... I've always been a sharp critic of the US Army chopping out weapons training in favor of graduating more boots, faster...

The manual of arms for the average soldier from WWI for his boltgun reads like advanced training today...

Which only illustrates and reinforces the deficiencies I am talking about...

But, you're a 4chan fag... not actually someone that matters.

>>33367688
Do you think that just because something is functional, that is also "done" and ready for full scale production? You can't just slap the shit into an M4 and call it a day. It's a weapons program not a wildcat

>>33367767
>It isn't revolutionary - it's being cheap as fuck.
If you're going to use the G11 and it's ammo to say telescoping and the LAST program aren't a step forward, than neither was the G11 because the rocket ball existed long before that. You don't understand the scope of the program.

> Copper is expensive. Which means brass is. Which means ammo costs, especially when you get into a war and are burning up great piles of it...

This is the US where war has been a sport for almost two decades, where the civilian markets buys more ammo than half it's NATO allies militaries. It's nice that you step all over your own argument though, since cheaper ammo means your tax dollars get spread around more and the soldier boys can practice more for less and therefore have a better chance of hitting shit while sitting atop your magical mountain of brass.

If it were about saving money alone we would switch to steel. No pull that stick out of your ass

>>33368184

>More shit = more better!

Not really. It's dependent upon usefulness. Forcing me to carry useless shit that a) can and will shit the bed when I need it most and b) I am accountable for is not very productive.

Just more shit that can break on me. More shit I can get yelled at/dinged for when it comes up missing or broken.

>Misses the point because does not know why they were developed

You're not asking yourself the fundamental question WHY they want more ammo carried...

More ammo carried can be accomplished several ways:

- Take something away and replace it with more ammo of ~same weight (never happens).
- Make ammo smaller and lighter, then increase the amount carried. (smaller rounds reducing effectiveness)
- Overload soldier. (reducing combat effectiveness).

The reasons above - and others - don't answer the question "why"...

Because of hit probability. Training - especially marksmanship training - was lacking. Cut so more recruits could be cycled through boot and graduated.

So instead of focusing on fixing the poor marksmanship problem and actually teaching soldiers how to by-God shoot, they tried to fix the problem of "missing" with tech.

Don't hit target = wasting ammo = wasting money.

Full auto = wasting money.

This isn't me thinking this way - this is them thinking this way.

The G11 fires 3 rounds in a burst in whatever microseconds. It feels like one round being fired, and all 3 are downrange before the rifle even begins to recoil rearward...

The Americans followed with that gay-as-shit 3 round burst crap on the updated M16. (Which was so universally hated, the first thing done during Gulf 1 was disable it.)

All of which is counter-intuitive. I would simply bring back good marksmanship training and extend Basic by another month to fix the fucking problem... but, that's actually a good idea, which means it will never be adopted...

>>33368033
>I'm nobody's crash test dummy. I have no problems with the advance of technology, but I'm not so blinded by New Shiny Shit that I am willing to spend lives downrange fielding anything that still has issues...

Sure thing Custer. How's that trapdoor Springfield treating you. Besides unless you're part of the random shit the Corps pulls, in Ranger Batt or above, then you weren't going to be doing the testing anyway

File: 45443820.jpg (85KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 400x400px

>>33368318

>compares caseless battle rifle ammo to Gyrojet ammo... thinks they are the same.

>Compares US .gov budget for ammo for ~1.5 million soldiers during wartime to half the civilian population of the US (~150 million) buying ammo privately...

I wasn't aware that the US citizenry were Hague and Geneva convention signatories.

But don't let me stop you thinking that what the US citizenry buys and what the US Army gets allocated are in any way related...

Of course it's about money. It's always about money.

What kind of logistical nightmare would result from switching to steel overnight - every single rifle, carbine, GPMG and MG in inventory would have to be gone over to make sure they worked properly with the "new" steel cased ammo...

I'm sure we'd be able to do all that for free.. overnight... and there wouldn't be any problems... ever...

Fucking retards, man...

>>33368340

>reductio ad absurdum

Eat my shit and choke.

>>33368322
You understand that assault rifles were born in an Era where crusty old men that held marksmanship in the highest regard FINALLY realized volume of fire + maneuvering was more important than superb marksmanship.

Im not arguing that guys are overloaded, but, For all the bullshit about carrying extra weight there is a lot of shit in that $80k loadout that somebody wished they had at some point. Sure it sucks dick in a low intensity campaign with overextended rotations but that wasn't supposed to be an issue. Maybe transfer to Cav or a mech division next time.

But just for sport how about this. Go ahead and make a list of exactly what you think the average professional war zone hiker should be carrying

>>33368375
>battle rifle
>Gyrojet ammo
Nigga wtf are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ball

>>33368261
You could definitely make an upper for an ar-15 that fires this kind of ammo.

>>33368375
Oh so the gyrojet uses rocket balls now huh
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ball

>Of course it's about money. It's always about money.
It involves money because nothing is free so of course money is a consideration.

>What kind of logistical nightmare would result from switching to steel overnight
Of so it's all happening overnight now. How would transitioning to steel be logistically worse than switching to a platform and ammunition thats still being developed and that's almost entirely different than what we already have the capability of producing on a massive scale

Can you not think long term?

>>33368390
I'm glad you took a class, I really am, but it's not supporting your argument and citing the inadequacies of military doctrine which you wish to bring back isn't going to be absolved by that.

>>33368437

Volume of fire + maneuver + win.
Volume of fire + superb marksmanship + maneuver = ?

Less win?

I have been consistent in my criticism of the policy of the US military cutting what I consider to be critical training - marksmanship - in order to cycle more warm bodies through training.

They tried the 3 shot burst fuckery. They ditched irons and solid fundamentals in favor of gear (EOTech, ACOG) which somewhat mitigated the issue.

I have no heartburn with shooting aids, provided the fundamentals are addressed first. But you put all your faith in one piece of kit, and it fails, then what?

>Go ahead and make a list of exactly what you think the average professional war zone hiker should be carrying

I'd have to weigh that...

I haven't been in the game for some time... my suggestions might be - probably are - outdated. Which wouldn't do either of us any good... especially since loadout is very much dependent upon mission...

At least allow me a bit of time to weigh this... We can revisit the loadout issue no problem, but I have to give it serious thought...

Peace.

And thanks for not being a gigantic 4chan retard... taking a serious subject seriously...

>>33368184
And one wonders why grunts have zero confidence in leadership. I lucked out and was in a mrap most of my deployment and still have back and knee issues. We are easily 4 times over historical fighting loads and our injuries are well represented in the va (with minimal compensation) yes yea peons and all but if we are going to want functional reserves of vets for recall we do need to lighten the load or find ways to unfuck their joints

>>33368508

Eat.

Shit.

>>33368189
Strange to see someone aware of the other side of army issues (first being carry weight) yes marksmanship now is a joke. The punchline is air/artillery support. And yes most of the kills via rifles are within 100m (and much closer) but we are allowing a valuable area of training to go by the wayside in favour of resilience or sexual harassment training.

>>33368529
>We are easily 4 times over historical fighting loads and our injuries are well represented in the va (with minimal compensation)
Also far over doing deployment cycles
>yes yea peons and all but if we are going to want functional reserves of vets for recall we do need to lighten the load or find ways to unfuck their joints
Easiest way to do that would be to get the cycles back down to normal AND to mind our own goddamn business. If all else fails, find a better job inside the chosen branch.

>>33368543
Ah so you have nothing. Cool

>>33368473
>>33368486
no idea where he got battle rifle from but the G11 uses caseless ammo, which performs like a normal bullet but without a case, the gyrojet is a rocket ball but modernised slightly.

>>33368473
>>33368486

>cites obscure mid-1800's technology that went nowhere
>chides me for mistaking it for obscure late 20th century technology that went nowhere

*shrug*

Whatever man...

>it's not about money
Yes, it is. It always is.
>okay, it is about money, but I'm still right
Wha-?

>if about $$, then just go steel
Big problem
>no, it's not
Actually, yeah it kinda is.
>Okay, it's a problem, but it's just as bad as going to an unfinished, undeveloped system, even though we have all these existing systems already laying around...
Wha-?

>>33368567
Well we shall see what goes on this administration for your second bit. To the first I somehow only went out once in 6 years but yeah buddy of mine wnt over for 3 in his 4 active years then again in his reserve status. 02-08 were weird

>>33368552

Finally, someone gets it.

The weird "u" in "favour" says you're probably a leaf, a Brit or an Aussie/Kiwi... regardless, you sound like you know because you actually had to deal with these issues yourself...

>>33368524
>I have no issue with shooting aids
>says the person that has been criticizing the creation of a lighter ammunition because it's mere existsnce somehow undermines marksmanship training
You're criticism isn't of caseless ammunition, it's of the fact that soldiers have been carrying more and more equipment each year since 1900 and you feel that making lighter ammo means that they'll be carrying more gear that you deem irrelevant to combat.

You're being pretty retarded.

>>33368612
American that had to learn a few empire dialects for family and service actually. But yes while I lucked out and was mostly in the truck on the m2 I did get rice crispy knees from deployment loadout and that was the lighter 2014 afghan loadout compared to any iraq one

>>33368054
Pretty hard to see how something works in the field without field testing....

>>33368771
He's just shifting the goal posts to something he sees as a problem that needs to be adressed, which is linked to the CT ammo development and its priority.
He's making a fair point, marksmanship is important for an army that usually deploys far from home in numbers too small to get the job done.
You need SUPERB gear, training and guns for that.
The US has a gucci gun, mediocre training and excellent gear.
CT will allow US soldiers to saturate more with heavier volume of fire, keeping the enemy down more and allowing for indirect support to really make the other side hurt.

Doctrine has shifted away from marksmanship because the rifles are not meant for it, oldfag. The US doesnt train for it because doctrine says to wait for the air support. The M4 is more of a self defense platform, as the barrel length shows. The M16 is the riflemans gun, moving away from it clearly shows a lack of value of marksmanship.
It also shows why the A10 is somewhat of a redheaded stepchild - If you neuter your combat strength at 400 yds, you need to have air support on station much quicker, necessitating FA-18s instead of A10s.

The overall conclusion is that the concept of individual marksmanship lives on in the DM, but the group as a whole has gone to the Soviet doctrine of using volume of fire to overwhelm the enemy, then keeping them there until either a DM picks them off or the airstrike/mortar/arty finishes the job.

In this light, CT is brilliant.

I am certain of this because I served somewhere where suppressive fire does not exist as a concept and even the MG shoots to kill. I don't know whether the US has the concept of a two man MG team for the M240B, but having a spotter walk you in with a machinegun for long range targets is a thing in other parts of the world and it allows less training in marksmanship.

>>33368592
You still aren't putting together an argument anon. Metallic cartridges are a mature technology and everything we need to start using steel is common knowledge. Switching systems to fully support caseless or telescopic are not. Making your argument solely about money is retarded when you have to ignore every other benefit to do so. Money is always a factor but it is far from the only factor

>>33368583
Do you even know what your talking about?

"Rocket Ball" ammunitition has the powder contained within a hollow cavity in the round, it still uses an explosion to propel the round like a conventional gun, it is nothing like the gyrojet where the round is still under acceleration after it leaves the barrel. Just think of Rocket ball as like a cross between a gyrojet round and a modern round.

For anyone who wants to know a bit more.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/11/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-1-program-history-ammunition-technical-discussion/

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/03/18/interview-kori-phillips-program-officer-lsat-ctsas-part-2-ammunition-technical-discussion-contd/

Hadji kids are going to be pissed.

They always scrambled over our previous firefight areas to police brass. So they can sell it for scrap.

>>33369419
Great. Germany is hosting a competition to move to a new carbine right now which is probably supposed to last another 30 years. Great work, kanonenuschi.

>>33368479
Not really, as the upper would have basically 0 parts compatibility with normal AR-15 uppers and wouldn't utilize the buffer tube on the lower. They would need to design so much that they may as well build a new gun. Also due to the LSAT uses push through feeding, an AR upper that still uses the magwell on the AR lower would either need to have the barrel a lot higher in the gun than normal (which would result in more muzzle rise) so that it could eject the cases below the barrel or would have height over bore issues that everyone would complain about.

>>33369145
He's probably a LARPing fag. Literally no soldier is going to complain about lighter weapons and ammo.

Yes, assistant Gunners are a thing in the US Army and USMC. They're actually very well trained and good at what they do. It's definitely not just spraying rounds like he's making it out to be.

As for marksmanship, it is still emphasized in combat units (why bother teaching truck drivers how to shoot,) and in my unit if you didn't shoot expert you were a fag, and if you didn't shoot sharpshooter you got smoked and remedial training.

>>33367346
I'm impressed with the belt loading mechanism that they claim to have experimented with, where the gun automatically loads the belt out of the pouch and into the gun when you reload it. I'm also interested in their idea of giving every soldier a belt fed gun (but with lower capacity belt pouches for the average rifleman) and wonder how that idea would play out when issued along side the XM25 that will be going into service this year.

>>33367767
>It isn't revolutionary - it's being cheap as fuck.
Except for how it offers all of the advantages of caseless ammunition with none of the down sides, and even offers advantages over current ammunition that caseless ammunition didn't offer (more resistant to cookoffs than current ammunition).