Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

IAR Additions

SAW-gunner.jpg

Judging from the comments there's quite a bit of interest -- and insider knowledge -- of the IAR competition.

I just want to set one thing straight: I wrote the earlier post mainly to get what I had out there and I caveated the whole deal with the fact that my reporting was incomplete.

Thanks to Krag who set me straight on whether the IAR was replacing all SAWs...it clearly is not but I didn't specify that in my post. And sorry Sven for getting the Singapore company wrong. My source said Ultimax and in my notes it looks like I wrote it as the name of the company, not the name of the gun.

What I decided to do was to go ahead and post the entire response on my questions about the program to SysCom (Marine Corps Systems Command). They would not grant me a phone interview, but that's not surprising given my long a sordid relationship with them (body armor recall). Maybe if they'd agreed to let me talk to a real person, there wouldn't have been this confusion (and delay).

Anyway, here's what Syscom told me:

The Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) marks the return of the automatic rifle to the Corps. It provides the Marine Fire Team and Rifle Squad the capability to achieve fire superiority through short term accurate, high volume, automatic fire to suppress targets and enable the remainder of the unit Fire Team to close with and destroy the enemy. Additionally, The IAR is the individual weapon of the Automatic Rifleman in the Fire Team and, as such, provides his means for offensive and defensive direct fire engagement. The IAR consists of an automatic rifle, designated optic, magazines, bipod, cleaning and maintenance equipment, and sling. The IAR includes attachment points for integration of the full range of currently available weapon accessories such as the Rifle Combat Optic (RCO), PEQ-2A, PAS-13, PVS-17, MWS Broomstick grip, and others.

The source documentation is the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) for Infantry Automatic Rifle dated Jan. 21, 2005, that validates a requirement for an individual Marine operable, high volume of fire automatic rifle at the Infantry Fire Team level. The Approved Acquisition Objective is for 4,476 weapons to be fielded to the rifle squads within Marine Infantry Battalions and the scout teams within Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions. There have been no weapons purchased and no contract(s) awarded during this phase.

The IAR will enhance the Automatic Rifleman's maneuverability and displacement speed, while providing him the ability to achieve fire superiority and suppress or destroy those targets of most immediate concern to the fire team. The IAR LAR shall provide accurate automatic or semi-automatic fires against point (550 meters) and area (800 meters) targets in all light, environmental, and terrain conditions. The IAR will be operated by a single Marine and employed from all doctrinal firing positions. Additionally, the IAR shall demonstrate improved portability, reliability, and maneuverability through constricted terrain and conditions over the current M249 SAW.

Analysis that pointed toward establishing this requirement is listed below:

a. Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan (JSSAMP), 2003. The JSSAMP provides the description of the Services' desire to evolve current small arms systems into the next generation of more capable and lighter weight systems.

b. U.S. Army Infantry Center LMG JCIDS Capabilities Base Assessment (CBA), Version 1.2, November 2004. Findings: There is a need to improve or replace the current M249 given the capability gaps that the current LMG displays.

c. The need for an Infantry Automatic Rifle was identified by experimentation conducted by 2d Battalion, 7th Marines, during August 2001.

d. The Ground Combat Element (GCE) Conference Report of Sept. 20, 2001 stated Phase I of the experiment was complete with results demonstrating the need for a more effective automatic rifle in the infantry squad.

e. US Army LWMG Analysis.

f. Joint Service Small Arms Individual Small Arms Analysis.

Hope that sheds some additional light on the IAR issue. I'll post more on this as the news comes in...

-- Christian

Comments

Here's a link to a Defense Review post on the latest iteration of the Ultimax SAW. Picatinny rail, folding stock, integrated M16 mag well.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1187

I think the writer over at DefRev could really use a copy of the MLA Handbook, but they're dependable for current media releases from small arms manufacturers.

Posted by: Mang at October 23, 2008 03:09 AM


I really appreciate his wisdom and philosophy of life.Haw-haw !It is a very beaufitul writing! The moderator is really a man of

intention.
fake rolex watches replica
http://www.onestoptown.com/
http://www.watchinstyle.com/rolex-datedate-white-diamondsswiss-eta-2836-p-768.html?
replica nike shoes sale
zenid=teg6g8jtnlurrhkmbomsugkuj7
http://easyforbuy.com/002-puma-shoes-all-black-p-4029.html
http://lowestmall.com/9826-nike-king-black-sapphire-p-5367.html

http://www.rolex8u.com/

Posted by: replicawatches at October 14, 2008 08:57 PM


Regardless where you put it, a 40 rd. mag will always pose an issue when you're trying to use a weapon with efficiency. Top fed, it gets in the way of the sights, or it has to be specially made for that weapon (P-90). Side fed, it will either get in the way when firing from around a corner, or stick way out from the corner, giving you a larger profile. Ever shot at a full seated magazine?

I just requal'd on the M-16A2 yesterday, and even the 30 rd mag sometimes gets in the way in prone supported.

Posted by: AMMOAMN at October 10, 2008 04:08 AM


if 40 and 50 round magazines are a problem, why not have side or top-mounted magazines, like the FG42 or Bren.

Posted by: drm at October 10, 2008 03:31 AM


I wonder if the Marines have considered arming the assistance automatic rifleman with this weapon. If I remember my doctrine correctly the assistant is armed with a standard M-16 and his role is to assit the Automatic Rifleman(AR) or take over in the event the AR is incapacitated. If the assistant was equiped with an IAR the fire power of the fire team would be increased with a minimal impact on the team in terms of logistics and magazine commonality. Not to mention the added benefit of having the extra firepower immediatly available and not stripping the squad of 1 or 2 of its SAWs

Posted by: James at October 10, 2008 12:43 AM


If the C-Mag is the way to go for an IAR (again, if it's a valid concept in terms of being separate from a SAW), then I hope that it's improved over when members of the 82nd Airborne Division were trying it:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jul2003/a072803b.html

"C-MAG Results: ‘I’ll Stick with 30 Rounds’"

Posted by: Edward at October 9, 2008 11:19 PM


really like the concept of the IAR, and have seen the Future Weapons video on it. Regardless, 30-round magazines are not good enough for even a lightweight machinegun. Currently, aftermarket vendors offer 40-round magazines for AR-15/M-16 rifles; that is a readily available step in the right direction.


Posted by: P.J. Busche at October 9, 2008 07:50 PM

40 round magazines are a real bitch when trying to maintain a low silouette when firing laying down. They tend to 'tripod' with the bipod and are clumsy when changing magazines laying down.

Posted by: tontochoc at October 9, 2008 09:01 PM


I really like the concept of the IAR, and have seen the Future Weapons video on it. Regardless, 30-round magazines are not good enough for even a lightweight machinegun. Currently, aftermarket vendors offer 40-round magazines for AR-15/M-16 rifles; that is a readily available step in the right direction.

Posted by: P.J. Busche at October 9, 2008 07:50 PM


Ooops, my blog is at: http://americanmohist.blogspot.com

Posted by: Jimmy at October 9, 2008 10:37 AM


Concur with Steve that you always do 3-5 rnd bursts in auto fire, to maintain accuracy, unless you are in final protective line fire mode.

This conflict of assault rifle/auto rifle vs light machine guns has been with us ever since the Germans invented the assault rifle. Once you put automatic fire into the assault rifle, the question comes up, why do you need a dedicated light machine gun? And what is the difference between the LMG vs an Auto Rifle?

On the squad level, there is very little difference. It is nice that the Marines are challenging the orthodox LMG with some experimentation here.

See my blog for more exploration on the historical roles of the machine gun and LMG/AR future development.

Posted by: Jimmy at October 9, 2008 10:36 AM


stephen russell: Yeah, the next thing you know Texas and California will be annexed by illegal immigrants, oh wait, that was us.

It's not the ammo use that was the deciding factor for the switch. Assault rifles are best used in two to three round bursts when used on full auto at all. Changing the sear mechanism to stop at three just made it far easier than training someone to control it manually. We were always trained that the only person who had his M16 on auto was whoever was on point. Besides you can just keep drilling a target with rapid single shots.

An automatic rifle should be a different design all together. It has to be designed to fire 3 to 5 round bursts of relatively accurate fire as opposed to a battle rifle which is designed to be fired semi mostly but capable of full auto fire. Everyone on the squad can't carry the same toys, it's a team and a system of interlocking roles. IIRC, the US hasn't had a real weapon (M16s with cheesy sheet metal bipods don't count) for this role in a long time, but, there's often a slot listed on the fire team.

Posted by: steve at October 8, 2008 11:24 PM


I wouldnt mind a Used SAWs & M4.
IF 2 be scrapped.
Give it to WE THE PEOPLE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE.
Case closed.
Secure our Borders.

Posted by: stephen russell at October 8, 2008 09:23 PM


I guess selecting marines so that they'd consider the SAW a personal weapon is off the table?

Posted by: jsallison at October 8, 2008 08:50 PM


drm,

probably for the same reason why the took off the full auto option from the M16. Soldiers wasted too much ammo spraying targets without hitting much. Kinda like all the users of AKs do know.

Jeff

Posted by: jeff at October 8, 2008 08:29 PM


Umm, so these IARs are basically a standard rifle with a barrel and mechanism capable of extended firing (i.e. a heavy barrel and an open-bolt operating system).

Why not issue them to everyone in the unit?

Posted by: drm at October 8, 2008 07:00 PM


SEE: http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/USMC_Rifle_w_Old_Bullet.html

Posted by: AFM at October 8, 2008 03:00 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.