New US Marine Corps Technologies [Powerpoint Presentation]

I too am suspicious of this "lightweight fetish." It seems that the need for a "bunker-buster," will always be with us. Relying on close air support is OK ... up to the point when you are killed from its absence due to any one of a hundred good reasons. If you have no artillery to make up for that missing piece, all the theory in the world is of no immediate use.

In re this "lightness." The Germans have only Army which resisted the lure of the 5.56. Perhaps for engagements like this one in A-Stan, we should have the option of equipping the guys with .308, either in the M-14, G-3, or other system. Although 5.56 ammo is lighter, the new-model M-16s are not. Instead of SAW's why not M-60's.

There's lots of long shooting in the mountains. The rap I read in SOF on the 5.56, is that they are getting excellent long-range accuracy, but the hits are not always putting the bad guys away. And of course, as noted here, the lightest of cover nullifies the 5.56, at all but the closest ranges. SOF also reports that the planners are looking at a 6.5MM as the new round of choice, so the problems have not gone completely unnoticed!

There is also a serious piece missing in our present day close-support systems,too. I hate to be a total retro, but maybe we need to revive a PROPELLER driven unit for close air support in high-altitude terrain like this. How about a Skyraider Revival? It has incredible loiter time, which means less waiting for those pinned down. Smarter bombs and FLIR could give this maneuvrable old truck, with it's 4 20MM wing cannon and huge bomb load a new lease on life. It is slow(which is an asset in this kind of work), and would probably need fixed bases closer to the action than the fast jets, but for all practical purposes it can do what an A-10 does at less cost. It was a day weapon,which is a problem, but maybe some new avionics would help.

Maybe our new friends the Russkis have something modern on the shelf we good use right away (SU-25?) Or maybe more A-10s are the answer. But in this rehearsal of greater Islamofascist clean-outs to come, we have to try a couple of things "out of the normal box." This set of bad guys has pointed out a couple of game-day glitches in our playbook.

But what happened to the M-60?

I thought they were ditching them for the M240G from Fabrique Nationale Manufacturing, Inc.??

After extensive operational and technical tests, the US Army has selected and type classified the M240B 7.62mm medium machine gun produced by Fabrique Nationale as a replacement for the M60 Series machine gun. This is a ground mounted variant of the original M240/M240C/M240E1 coaxial/pintle mounted machine gun used on M2/M3 Series Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the M1 Series Abrams tank, and the U.S. Marine Corps LAV-Series of Light Armored Vehicles. While possessing many of the same basic characteristics as the M60 Series medium machine guns, the durability of the M240 system results in superior reliability and maintainability when compared to the M60. The M240D 7.62mm machine gun is a left hand feed, gas operated, air cooled, fixed head space weapon. The M240D has two possible configurations: aircraft and egress (ground). In the aircraft configuration the M240D has a front and rear sight and a trigger group which accommodates the spade grip device. The ground configuration involves the installation of an Egress Package which is designed to provide downed aircrew personnel with increased fire power. The Egress Package contains a buttstock assembly, a buffer assembly, a bipod assembly, and a conventional trigger assembly. The M240D is issued for aircraft configuration. The barrel assembly contains a three position gas plug. The first gas plug position allows the weapon to cycle at 750 shots-per-minute (SPM). The two remaining ports increase the SPM by 100 each (I.E., gas port position 2 = 850 SPM; gas port position 3 = 950 SPM). The aircraft configured M240D weighs 25.6 lb. and is 42.3 inches long. The egress configuration weighs 26.2 lb. and is 49.0 inches long. A similar version of the M240, the M240G, is the standard US Marine Corps medium machine gun. The Marine Corps is replacing the M60E3 with the M240G. The ground version of the M240 allows for a common medium machine gun throughout the Marine Corps. The M240G Machine Gun is the ground version of the original M240/M240E1, 7.62mm medium class weapon designed as a coaxial/pintle mounted machine gun for tanks and light armored vehicles. The rate of fire may be controlled by three different regulator settings. The M240G is modified for ground use by the installation of an "infantry modification kit," comprised of a flash suppressor, front sight, carrying handle for the barrel, a buttstock, infantry length pistol grip, bipod, and rear sight assembly. Manufacturer: Fabrique Nationale Manufacturing, Inc. Length: 47.5 inches (120.65 centimeters) Weight: 24.2 pounds (10.99 kilograms) Bore diameter: 7.62mm (.308 inches) Maximum effective range: 1.1 miles (1.8 kilometers) on tripod mount Maximum range: 2.31 miles (3.725 kilometers) Rates of fire: Cyclic: 650-950 rounds per minute Rapid: 200 rounds per minute Sustained: 100 rounds per minute Unit Replacement Cost: $6,600

The tendency is away from dedicated single role aircraft. The JSF is what we will eventually have. It is supposed to be hover capable (since it has to replace the Harrier as well as the F-16), which may help in some respects. Won't be cheap, though. As for prop air support for loiter time, in Afghanistan we do use AC-130 gunships. The rap on them is that they have been effective and welcome, but there aren't enough to go around and they are often flying support for the SF guys in particular, and so unavailable to line units. When they can get them, they do. On the M240 mentioned by another fellow, a true belt fed MG firing a full power cartridge is a welcome advantage in any situation. Enough said.

One issue on arty support is that the light guys rely on towed 105s, since they need to airlift them. They have been left behind, replaced by CAS. It may not be obvious, but they are far behind other modern artillery pieces in every capability. Development of advanced modern munitions for the artillery has concentrated on 155mm and MLRS rounds. Being larger, they more readily take smart sensor upgrades. And the firepower payoff is higher, with the much larger shells. A similar thing has happened with mortars, with the 120mm getting most of the upgrade attention. The obvious problem then becomes, that weight prevents the advanced systems from being used, while the light ones fire WW II era "dumb" shells that are by now primitive.

It is part of the same overall issue, that upgrades in the relatively recent past have been tailored to a largely vehicle-dependent ground force, with the result that weight has been an afterthought compared to firepower, range, etc. We face the same need to get the advanced generation of weapons into the field, even for forces trying to fight much lighter than ever before. Whether that means a method of getting 120s closer to the action, or smart rounds for 81s - or airliftable mini-MLRS launchers, or ICM shells for 105mm - it not obvious. Similarly, either Javelins have to be toted or a lighter ATGM developed (not an unguided and range limited AT-4). But that one or the other is important, if our guys fighting light are not be get outgunned, seems essential.

For now, lighter special purpose stuff isn't here yet, and the obvious workaround is to find ways to get the existing dismounted heavy weapons into the field.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.