Untitled Document

International Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium, Exhibition & Firing Demonstration

"Enhancing Small Arms Effectiveness in Current and Future Operations”

19 - 22 May 2008

Dallas, TX

Agenda

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

Session I: Joint Services Small Arms Synchronization Team (JSSAST)

       Chair: COL Karl Scott Flynn, USA, Chairman, JSSAST

COL Robert Radcliffe, USA

CAPT Pat Sullivan, USN
COL Charles Beck, USAF
Lt Col Tracy Tafolla, USMC
CAPT Scott Genovese, USN
Mr. Kevin Swenson, Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD)

Small Arms Section Awards Presentation

     Chinn Award

      Recipient: Mr. Troy Smith

Hiram Maxim and His Machinegun: A Great Force Harnessed to a Useful Purpose

Dr. Stephen Small, JSSAP, U.S. Army, ARDEC

PM Soldier Weapons

Mr. Richard Audette, Deputy, PM Soldier Weapons

LTC Timothy Chyma, USA, PM Individual Weapons
LTC Michael Ascura, USA, PM Crew Served Weapons

Session II: Small Arms Ammunition and Technology

     Lethal Limited Range Harbor Security Ammunition

Mr. Stephen McFarlane, U.S. Army, ARDEC

     Effects of Small Caliber Ammunition through Intermediate Barriers

Mr. Jeremy Lucid, U.S. Army, ARDEC

     After Barrier Effectiveness of Small Caliber Ammunition

Mr. Mark Minisi, U.S. Army, ARDEC

     .50 Caliber Short Range Training Ammunition

Mr. John MacDougall, General Dynamics OTS, Canada

Session III: Advancements in 40mm Munitions (Low and High Velocity);Presentations by 40mm Technology Insertion Team

     Chair: Mr. David Broden, Broden Resource Solutions, LLC

     M385A1 Composite Projectile Feasibility Study

International Infantry and Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium.html[5/19/2016 9:13:47 AM]
Untitled Document

Mr. Christopher Summa

Wednesday, 21 May 2008

Keynote Address

Col Robert Mattes, USAF, CTO Director, DUSD, AS&C

Session IV: JSSAP

    Lightweight Small Arms Technologies Update

Ms. Kori Spiegel, U.S. Army, ARDEC

    The Ultimate Caliber: Myth or Reality?

Mr. Shawn Spickert-Fulton, U.S. Army, ARDEC

     Infantry Studies and Simulations

Mr. Alexander Lee, U.S. Army, ARDEC

    Joint Service Small Arms Program Applied Research Initiatives

Mr. John Edwards, U.S. Army, ARDEC

    JSSAP’s Future Small Arms Technology Plan: The Fusion of Science and Science Fiction

Mr. Joel Goldman, Chief, JSSAP, U.S. Army, ARDEC

Session V: NATO

     NATO Research and Technology Organization Update

Mr. Mark Richter, U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico

    NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization

Mr. Per Arvidsson, FMV, Sweden

    Session VI: Time for a Change – U.S. “Incremental” Small Arms Fielding: Failures and Solutions

Mr. Jim Schatz, Jr., Time for a Change Team

Dr. Gary Roberts, DDS

Session VII: Industry Ammunition Producers and Technology Companies

     Chair: Mr. David, Broden, Broden Resource Solutions, LLC

Mr. Steve Torma, General Dynamics OTS

Mr. Dave Council, Olin
Mr. Sy Wiley, Polytech

Thursday, 22 May 2008

Keynote Address

Mr. Chris Grassano, Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition Systems

National Small Arms Center Update

Mr. Frank Puzycki, U.S. Army, ARDEC

Session IX: Testing, Training and Simulation

     Technical Evaluation, Operational Evaluation, Lessons Learned in Small Arms Procurement

Mr. Joseph Abram, NAVSEA, Crane

    Suppressing Sacred Cows

Mr. Graham Evenden, System Design Evaluation, Ltd.

     NDIA Strategic Initiatives

International Infantry and Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium.html[5/19/2016 9:13:47 AM]
Untitled Document

Mr. David Broden, Chairman, Armaments Division; Broden Resource Solutions, LLC

Session X: Less Lethal Systems and Technology

Session Overview, JNLWD

Human Effects and Effectiveness, HECOE
Mission Payload Module, NL Weapon System, MCSC
Improved Flash Bang Grenade, SOCOM
Taser International
Beretta/Defense Technologies

Session XI: Weapons

     Canadian Proposed Small Arms Demonstration Project

Mr. Gilles Pageau, Directorate Soldier System Program Management 10-4

     Advanced Thermal Management of Automatic Rifles

Ms. Laurie Florio, U.S. Army, ARDEC

     Implementation of the New Israeli Light Machine Gun (LMG),“The NEGEV,” as a Fire Power Multiplier in the Current and Future
Battlefields: Assessments & Conclusions

Lt Col Michael Hartman, IDF Israel, North East Technologies, Ltd.

     Experimental Performance Analysis on Recoil Pad for Reducing Firing Shock Force

Dr. Joon-Ho Lee, Agency for Defense Development, Korea

     Development of a Non-Lethal 12ga. Shotgun System for Use with the EM113REV

Mr. Kevin Adams, U.S. Army, ARDEC ATF

Session XII: Fire Control

     Fire Control Units for Thermal Weapon Sights

Mr. Alexander Kuhrt, Helmut Schmidt University, Germany

     Aimpoint BR8: A Fire Control System for Small Arms

Mr. Lennart Ljungfelt, Aimpoint, Inc.

     Real Time Fire Control Solution for Individual and Crew-Served Direct Firing Infantry Weapons: Algorithm and Implementation

Mr. Alexander Kuhrt, Helmut Schmidt University, Germany

International Infantry and Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium.html[5/19/2016 9:13:47 AM]
 PROMOTING NATIONAL SECURITY SINCE 1919

INTERNATIONAL INFANTRY & JOINT SERVICES

SMALL ARMS SYSTEMS
SYMPOSIUM, EXHIBITION
& FIRING DEMONSTRATION
“Enhancing Small Arms Effectiveness in Current and Future Operations”

HIGHLIGHTS
ONSITE
Keynote Speakers include:
Hon James R. Ambrose,
BROCHURE
former Under Secretary of the
Army
Col Robert Mattes, USAF
CTO Director, DUSD, AS&C
Mr. Chris Grassano,
Project Manager, Maneuver
Ammunition Systems

The first James R. Ambrose

Award, named for former
Under Secretary of the Army,
will be presented on Tuesday
morning, in addition to the
George Chinn and Carlos
Hathcock Awards

The Firing Demonstration

will be held on Wednesday
evening at Tac Pro Shooting
Center

MAY 19-22, 2008 FAIRMONT HOTEL DALLAS DALLAS, TEXAS

WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610 EVENT #8610
WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
SYMPOSIUM INFORMATION & AWARDS

INTERNATIONAL INFANTRY & JOINT SERVICES

SMALL ARMS SYSTEMS SYMPOSIUM,
EXHIBITION & FIRING DEMONSTRATION
MAY 19-22, 2008 DALLAS, TEXAS

OBJECTIVE
Facing terrorist forces from MOUT to the open battlefield, American forces
– both military and law enforcement alike – require the best equipment available.
Only through the efforts of government and industry working together on a wide
range of technology focus areas will the tools necessary to support our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines now and in the future be realized. These focus areas
range from incremental enhancements to fielded legacy small arms systems ATTIRE
to enabling technologies, such as fire control improvements, use of robotics Appropriate dress for this
and digitization of small arms systems on the battlefield, to name a few. This symposium is business casual for
symposium seeks to bring together government and industry, manufacturers and civilians and Class B uniform or
users to support this objective for the military and law enforcement communities. uniform of the day for military
personnel.

AMBROSE AWARD
ID BADGES
The Ambrose Award was established and is presented periodically to recognize
an Industrial Firm which, in the opinion of the Small Arms Division Executive During symposium registration
Board, has made outstanding contributions to the field of small arms systems. and check-in, each attendee
An outstanding contribution is characterized by exemplary commitment and will be issued an identification
contribution to the Armed Forces by delivering superior materiel that meets badge. Badges must be worn at all
required operational capabilities and supports a high level of force readiness in symposium functions.
the conduct of warfighting activities or homeland defense. Such contributions
may be shown through a record of continual demonstration of emerging PROCEEDINGS
technologies, development of products and systems, establishment of enhanced
production capabilities and integration of innovative weapons systems and Proceedings will be available on
supporting products and services required by the DoD and Allied countries. Such the web through the Defense
contributions would be easily recognized as “excellence” in industry leadership and Technical Information Center
responsiveness in cases where national security priorities require attention to meet (DTIC) one to two weeks after
urgent needs in either peace or war time. the symposium. You will receive
notification via e-mail once
the proceedings are available to
This award is named in honor of former Under Secretary of the Army, James R.
download/print/view.
Ambrose, because of his recognition of the value and contribution of industry
in meeting the needs of our national defense. This was made unmistakably clear
during his tenure from 1981-1988 as Under Secretary of the Army during the CONTACTS
Presidency of Ronald Reagan. He was a major force in the post Vietnam
modernization of all small arms weaponry where new and improved versions Ms. Meredith Geary
of the M16, M249 and M9 were purchased in large quantities as a result of Associate Director
industry competitions. Secretary Ambrose was a strong supporter of investing (703) 247-9476
in the Future Rifle Program, later known as the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) mgeary@ndia.org
Program. His emphasis on the need for competition could not be clearer here, as
there were as many as six contractor systems in various phases of the program and Mrs. Alden Davidson, CEM
4 firms ultimately participated in the 9-month long ACR Field Experiment, the Exhibits Manager
premier rifle evaluation of all time. For his support of small arms development and (703) 247-2582
procurement and his strong emphasis and actions in involving industry at every adavidson@ndia.org
step of the way, the NDIA Small Arms Division believes it entirely appropriate to
name this award in his honor.
 WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
AWARDS

PREVIOUS RECIPIENTS CHINN AWARD

CHINN AWARD The Chinn Award is presented annually to honor a government or industry
Thomas E. Cosgrove, 1988 individual who, in the opinion of the Small Arms Division Executive Board, has
James Ackley, 1989 made significant contributions to the field of small arms and/or infantry weapons
John S. Wood, Jr., 1990 systems. A significant contribution is considered to be a creative invention, new
Roderic A. Spies, 1991 design or innovative concept in small arms weapons, ammunition or ancillary
Edward C. Ezell, 1993 equipment that provides an advancement in the state-of-the art or capability
Richard E. Brown, 1994 enhancement that clearly benefits the warfighting or general military capability of
Joseph Unterkofler, 1995 the U.S. The Chinn Award may also be conferred as recognition to an
C. Reed Knight, Jr., 1996 individual who has performed sustained superior service in a career field of
Robert A. Trifiletti, 1997 science, engineering, test and evaluation, manufacturing program management,
George E. Kontis, 1998 academic study and research, publishing or maintenance relating to military small
Vernon E. Shisler, 1999 arms or infantry weapons.
Salvatore A. Fanelli, 2000
L. James Sullivan, 2001 The Chinn Award is named in honor of Lieutenant Colonel George M. Chinn,
Ernst Mauch, 2002 USMC, a career Marine who dedicated his life to the study, development and
Phil Baker, 2003 refinement of machine gun mechanisms. LtCol Chinn is remembered for his
Georges Chauveheid, 2003 work as a gun designer and for having compiled a five volume reference work
Ronnie Barrett, 2004 entitled, “The Machine Gun.”
Richard Audette, 2005
Richard Swan, 2006
William Dittrich, 2007 HATHCOCK AWARD
The Hathcock Award is presented to recognize an individual who, in the opinion
PREVIOUS RECIPIENTS of the Small Arms Division Executive Board, has made significant contributions
HATHCOCK AWARD in operational employment and tactics of small arms weapons systems which have
impacted the readiness and capabilities of the U.S. military or law enforcement.
Charles B. Mawhinney, 2000 A significant contribution is considered to be a superior performance of duties in
William Bartholomew, 2001 an operational environment or the development of tactics or training.
Jim Owens, 2000
Larry Vickers, 2003
The Hathcock Award is named in honor of Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N.
Steve Holland, 2004
Hathcock, II, USMC, a career Marine who dedicated his life to the service of this
Christopher Mitternight, 2005
country in both the military and law enforcement communities. He was honest,
Allen Boothby, 2006
tactful, considerate, courageous, quietly proud and determined in all things and
American Snipers Organization, 2007
all places from the range to the battlefield. “The Gunny” not only distinguished
himself in combat as a scout-sniper, but also as a competitive marksman and
trainer. In his capacity as a trainer, he not only significantly impacted the current
United States Marine Corps Scout-Sniper Program, but also influenced the sniper
programs of the other military services and similar law enforcement programs
nationwide.
WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
AGENDA

MONDAY, MAY 19, 2008

9:00 AM - 6:30 PM Registration Open – International Ballroom Foyer

5:00 PM - 6:30 PM Welcome Reception – Regency Ballroom

Exhibit Hall Open

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2008

7:00 AM - 6:30 PM Registration Open – International Ballroom Foyer
Exhibit Hall Open – Regency Ballroom
7:00 AM - 7:50 AM Continental Breakfast in Exhibit Hall – Regency Ballroom
7:50 AM Welcome and Administrative Announcements – International Ballroom
Mr. Sam Campagna, Director, Operations, NDIA
Mr. Brian Berger, Chairman, Small Arms Committee;
Vice President and General Manager, General Dynamics OTS
Simunition Operations
8:00 AM Keynote Address
Hon James R. Ambrose, former Under Secretary of the Army
SESSION I CHAIR 8:30 AM Session I: Joint Services Small Arms Synchronization Team
COL Karl Scott Flynn, USA, (JSSAST)
COL Robert Radcliffe, USA
Chairman, JSSAST
CAPT Pat Sullivan, USN
Col Charles Beck, USAF
LtCol Tracy Tafolla, USMC
CAPT Scott Genovese, USN
COL Kevin Noonan, USA, SOCOM
Mr. Kevin Swenson, Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD)
10:00 AM Break in Exhibit Hall – Regency Ballroom
10:30 AM Guest Speaker
Mr. Bryan O’Leary, Office of Senator Coburn (R-OK)
AWARDS PRESENTATION 11:00 AM Small Arms Section Awards Presentation
Join your colleagues to honor the Chinn Award
Chinn, Hathcock and Ambrose Recipient: Mr. Troy Smith
award winners on Tuesday Presented by: Mr. Jim Schatz
morning.
Hathcock Award
Recipient: SSA J. Buford Boone
Hon James R. Ambrose, former Presented by: Mr. Sal Fanelli and Mr. Bill Kozacek
Under Secretary of the Army, will
be in attendance to present the Ambrose Award
first James R. Ambrose Award. Recipient: St. Marks Powder
Presented by: Hon James R. Ambrose, Mr. Brian Berger and
Mr. Charles Buxton
 WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
AGENDA

11:30 AM Luncheon – Gold & Parisian

12:20 PM Hiram Maxim and His Machinegun: A Great Force Harnessed
to a Useful Purpose
Dr. Stephen Small, JSSAP, U.S. Army, ARDEC
12:40 PM PM Soldier Weapons
Mr. Richard Audette, Deputy, PM Soldier Weapons
LTC Timothy Chyma, USA, PM Individual Weapons
LTC Michael Ascura, USA, PM Crew Served Weapons
1:10 PM Session II: Small Arms Ammunition and Technology SESSION II CHAIR
Lethal Limited Range Harbor Security Ammunition Mr. James Taylor, ATK, Lake
Mr. Stephen McFarlane, U.S. Army, ARDEC City Army Ammunition Plant
(LCAAP)
Effects of Small Caliber Ammunition through Intermediate Barriers
Mr. Jeremy Lucid, U.S. Army, ARDEC
After Barrier Effectiveness of Small Caliber Ammunition
Mr. Mark Minisi, U.S. Army, ARDEC
Lightweight Small Caliber Ammunition Update
Mr. George Feghali, General Dynamics OTS, Canada
Development of a Viable Alternate Accuracy Requirement for
7.62mm Sniper
Mr. Eli Golden, U.S. Army, ARDEC
Mrs. Susan Polinski, U.S. Army, ARDEC
.50 Caliber Short Range Training Ammunition
Mr. John MacDougall, General Dynamics OTS, Canada
Environmentally Friendly Primers for Small Caliber Ammunition
Dr. Rao Yalamanchili, U.S. Army, REDCOM ARDEC
2:40 PM Session III: Advancements in 40mm Munitions (Low and High SESSION III CHAIR
Velocity); Presentations by 40mm Technology Insertion Team Mr. David Broden, Broden
M385A1 Composite Projectile Feasibility Study Resource Solutions, LLC
Mr. Christopher Summa
Development of M16A2 Pivoting Coupling
Mr. Matthew Millar
Electronics and Sensors in 40mm Low Velocity Grenade Ammo
Mr. Jason Wasserman
Producibility Improvements of 40mm High and Low Velocity Liners
Mr. Adam Sorchini
Center of Mass Changes During Arming of 40mm Fuzes
Mr. Adam Jacob
40mm Day/Night Practice Cartridge for MK13/XM320/M203
Grenade Launchers
Mr. Peter Martin for Mr. Fred Fitzsimmons
Mr. James Grassi
Ms. Melissa Wanner
3:30 PM Break in Exhibit Hall – Regency Ballroom
5:00 PM - 6:30 PM Reception in Exhibit Hall – Regency Ballroom
WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
AGENDA

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008

7:00 AM - 1:30 PM Exhibit Hall Open – Regency Ballroom
7:00 AM - 2:30 PM Registration Open – International Ballroom Foyer
7:00 AM - 7:45 AM Continental Breakfast in Exhibit Hall – Regency Ballroom
7:45 AM Welcome and Administrative Announcements – International Ballroom
Mr. Sam Campagna, Director, Operations, NDIA
Mr. Brian Berger, Chairman, Small Arms Committee; Vice
President and General Manager, General Dynamics OTS
Simunition Operations
7:50 AM Keynote Address
Col Robert Mattes, USAF, CTO Director, DUSD, AS&C
SESSION IV CHAIR 8:10 AM Session IV: JSSAP
Mr. Joel Goldman, Chief, JSSAP, 8:10 AM Lightweight Small Arms Technologies Update
U.S. Army, ARDEC Ms. Kori Spiegel, U.S. Army, ARDEC
8:30 AM The Ultimate Caliber: Myth or Reality?
Mr. Shawn Spickert-Fulton, U.S. Army, ARDEC
8:50 AM Infantry Studies and Simulations
Mr. Alexander Lee, U.S. Army, ARDEC
9:10 AM Joint Service Small Arms Program Applied Research Initiatives
Mr. John Edwards, U.S. Army, ARDEC
9:30 AM JSSAP’s Future Small Arms Technology Plan: The Fusion of
Science and Science Fiction
Mr. Joel Goldman, Chief, JSSAP, U.S. Army, ARDEC
9:50 AM Break in Exhibit Hall – Regency Ballroom
SESSION V CHAIR 10:20 AM Session V: NATO
LTC Mike Bodner, DND Canada, 10:20 AM NATO Land Capabilities Group (LCG) 1: Dismounted Soldier
Chairman, NATO LCG 1, LTC Mike Bodner, DND Canada, Chairman, NATO LCG 1,
Directorate of Land Requirements Directorate of Land Requirements (DLR)
(DLR) 10:30 AM NATO Research and Technology Organization Update
Mr. Mark Richter, U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command,
Quantico
10:45 AM NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization
Mr. Per Arvidsson, FMV, Sweden
11:00 AM Topical Group 3: Non-Lethal Capabilities Update
Ms. Liliana McShea, U.S. Army, ARDEC
11:20 AM Session VI: Time for a Change – U.S. “Incremental” Small Arms
Fielding: Failures and Solutions
Mr. Jim Schatz, Jr., Time for a Change Team
Dr. Gary Roberts, DDS
12:20 PM Luncheon – Gold & Parisian
1:30 PM Exhibit Hall Closes
 WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
AGENDA

1:30 PM Session VII: Industry Ammunition Producers and Technology SESSION VII CHAIR
Companies
Mr. Keith Enlow, ATK Lake City Mr. David Broden, Broden
Mr. Steve Torma, General Dynamics OTS Resource Solutions, LLC
Mr. Bruce Webb, Nammo USA
Mr. Alan Serven, Remington
Mr. Dave Council, Olin
Mr. John MacDougall, General Dynamics OTS, Canada
Mr. Paul Shipley, Textron-AAI
Mr. Nick Malkovich, Mac Ammo
Mr. Sy Wiley, Polytech
2:30 PM Board Buses and Depart for Contractor Firing Demonstration
– Tac Pro Shooting Center
4:30 PM Session VIII: Contractor Firing Demonstration SESSION VIII CHAIR
5:30 PM BBQ Dinner Buffet – Tac Pro Shooting Center Mr. Sal Fanelli, U.S. Marine
Corps Infantry Weapons
7:00 PM Buses Start Returning to Fairmont Hotel
Departures at 7:00 PM, 7:30 PM, 8:00 PM and 8:30 PM

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008

7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Registration Open – International Ballroom Foyer
7:30 AM - 8:20 AM Continental Breakfast – International Ballroom Foyer
8:20 AM Welcome and Administrative Announcements – International Ballroom
Mr. Sam Campagna, Director, Operations, NDIA
Mr. Brian Berger, Chairman, Small Arms Committee; Vice
President and General Manager, General Dynamics OTS
Simunition Operations
8:30 AM Keynote Address
Mr. Chris Grassano, Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition
Systems
9:00 AM National Small Arms Center Update
Mr. Frank Puzycki, U.S. Army, ARDEC
9:30 AM Session IX: Testing, Training and Simulation SESSION IX CHAIR
9:30 AM Technical Evaluation, Operational Evaluation, Lessons Learned in Ms. Liliana McShea, U.S. Army,
Small Arms Procurement ARDEC
Mr. Joseph Abram, NAVSEA, Crane
9:50 AM Suppressing Sacred Cows
Mr. Graham Evenden, System Design Evaluation, Ltd.
10:10 AM NDIA Strategic Initiatives
Mr. David Broden, Chairman, Armaments Division; Broden
Resource Solutions, LLC
10:30 AM Break – International Ballroom Foyer
WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
AGENDA

SESSION X CHAIR 10:50 AM Session X: Less Lethal Systems and Technology

Mr. Kevin Swenson, JNLWD, 10:50 AM Session Overview, JNLWD
Quantico
11:00 AM Human Effects and Effectiveness, HECOE
11:20 AM Mission Payload Module, NL Weapon System, MCSC
11:40 AM Improved Flash Bang Grenade, SOCOM
12:00 PM Taser International
12:20 PM Beretta/Defense Technologies
12:30 PM Luncheon – Venitian
1:30 PM Session XI: Weapons
1:30 PM Canadian Proposed Small Arms Demonstration Project
Mr. Gilles Pageau, Directorate Soldier System Program
Management 10-4
1:50 PM Advanced Thermal Management of Automatic Rifles
Ms. Laurie Florio, U.S. Army, ARDEC
2:30 PM Break – International Ballroom Foyer
2:40 PM Implementation of the New Israeli Light Machine Gun (LMG),
“The NEGEV,” as a Fire Power Multiplier in the Current and
Future Battlefields: Assessments & Conclusions
LtCol Michael Hartman, IDF Israel, North East Technologies,
Ltd.
3:00 PM Experimental Performance Analysis on Recoil Pad for
Reducing Firing Shock Force
Dr. Joon-Ho Lee, Agency for Defense Development, Korea
3:20 PM Development of a Non-Lethal 12ga. Shotgun System for Use
with the EM113REV
Mr. Kevin Adams, U.S. Army, ARDEC ATF

SESSION XII CHAIR 3:40 PM Session XII: Fire Control

Mr. John Edwards, U.S. Army, 3:40 PM Fire Control Units for Thermal Weapon Sights
ARDEC Mr. Alexander Kuhrt, Helmut Schmidt University, Germany
4:00 PM Aimpoint BR8: A Fire Control System for Small Arms
Mr. Lennart Ljungfelt, Aimpoint, Inc.
4:20 PM Real Time Tire Control Solution for Individual and Crew-Served
Direct Firing Infantry Weapons: Algorithm and Implementation
Mr. Alexander Kuhrt, Helmut Schmidt University, Germany
4:40 PM Closing Remarks
Conference Concludes
Thank you for your participation!
Pease return your survey to the NDIA Staff.
 WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT FLOOR PLAN AAI Corporation – 501

Aimpoint, Inc. – 106
Anniston Army Depot – 202
ARDEC Picatinny Arsenal – 102
Ashbury International Group, Inc. – 601
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc. – 311
Colt Defense, LLC – 401
Combined Systems, Inc. – 302
Command Arms Accessories/Fobus – 104
Eagle Industries Unlimited, Inc. – 406
ELCAN Optical Technologies – 410
Enidine, Inc. – 305
FNH USA, LLC – 502
GEMTECH – 506
General Dynamics-ATP – 101
General Dynamics-OTS – 201
GLOCK, Inc. – 505
IML Corp. – 112
Inland Technology, Inc. – 204
IWI – 313
JMTC-RIA – 312
Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate – 402
Joint Service Small Arms Program – 111
Knight’s Armament Company – 301
L-3 EOTech – 413
LaRue Tactical – 510
Laser Devices, Inc. – 613
LaserMax, Inc. – 214
Leatherman Tool Group, Inc. – 414
Long Mountain Outfitters, LLC – 511
Magpul Inds. Corporation – 512
Marine Corps Logistics Command – 611
Martin Electronics, Inc. – 513
MAST Technologies, Inc. – 317
Metal Storm, Inc. – 310
MILKOR USA, Inc. – 404
Nammo Talley – 110
NDIA – 114
Night Vision Systems – 205
FIRING DEMONSTRATION COMPANIES NSWC Corona – 109
OLIN Winchester – 409
Aimpoint, Inc. – weapon optics Magpul Inds. Corporation – small Orison Marketing, LLC – 319
Ashbury International Group, Inc. arms, assault rifles, accessories Otis Products, Inc. – 304
– sniper rifle systems Metal Storm, Inc. – multi shot Pierce Targets – 209
ATK – ammunition donation weapon systems Remington Arms Company, Inc. – 318
Colt Defense, LLC – assault rifles MILKOR USA – M32 Grenade Launcher RUAG Ammotec – 605
Command Arms – small arms NeTech – infantry assault rifles Savit Corporation – 405
accessories NLight/Laser Devices – optical Smith & Wesson – 609
Engel Ballistics Research – specialty distractor Streamlight, Inc. – 306
and subsonic ammunition Pierce Targets – portable targeting Tactical & Survival Specialties, Inc. – 314
FNH USA, LLC – infantry weapons system TASER International – 514
GLOCK – handguns Remington Arms – sniper rifle Thales Communications, Inc. – 206
Inland Technologies, Inc. – weapons systems The Beta Company – 212
cleaning system Smith & Wesson – handguns Thor Defense, Inc. – 418
La Rue Tactical – portable targeting Tally/Nammo – shoulder launched Trijicon, Inc. – 503
system ordnance U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center – 309
Less-Lethal – less-lethal devices Trijicon, Inc. – weapon optics U.S. Ordnance – 211
Long Mountain Outfitters – foreign TSSI – weapon optics Vectronix, Inc. – 509
weapons, mounts, accessories Wilcox Industries – night vision VingTech Corp. – 210
Mac Ammo – small arms ammunition equipment Wilcox Industries – 411
Williams Software Associates Corp. – 417
WWW.NDIA.ORG/MEETINGS/8610
SPONSORS

ATK
THANK YOU TO OUR ATK is a premier aerospace and defense company with $4.1 billion in annual sales, over
17,000 employees and operations in 21 states.
SPONSORS
ATK Armament Systems Group is the world’s largest manufacturer of small and
medium-caliber ammunition. Our military and commercial ammunition product
portfolio spans a broad range, from 5.56mm through .50 caliber for use in handguns,
shotguns and rifles. We also manufacture 20mm, 25mm and 30mm rounds for air,
land and sea platforms, as well as large caliber ammunition for main battle tanks. We
are developing enhanced tactical ammunition including air bursting munitions, next-
FIRING generation energetics and advanced propellants that will increase performance and
DEMONSTRATION lethality.

BBQ SPONSORS ATK is also the world’s top producer of Bushmaster medium-caliber chain gun systems
for ground combat, naval and air armament applications. ATK produces the M242
FNH USA, LLC 25mm cannon for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the MK44 30/40mm cannon selected
General Dynamics OTS/ by the U.S. Marine Corps’ for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle and the 30mm M230
cannon for the AH-64 Apache and AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters.
Simunition
®
Smith & Wesson
St. Marks Powder
Building on the capabilities of our core ammunition and rocket motor businesses, ATK
is developing several breakthrough advanced weapon systems, such as the U.S. Navy’s
Trijicon, Inc. Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) and the U.S. Army’s Precision
Guidance Kit (PGK), Spider munition and Individual Airburst Weapon System
(IAWS). Using state-of-the-art guidance, navigation and control systems, targeting
systems, high-energy propellants and advanced warheads, ATK is developing weapons
that will fly farther, faster and strike targets with unprecedented precision and lethality
at affordable procurement cost.

ATK is the world leader in the design, development and production of solid rocket
propulsion systems for space, strategic-missile defense and tactical applications. Our
tactical rocket motor portfolio includes propulsion systems for air-to-air, air-to-surface,
surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles. Additional ATK news and information
can be found at www.atk.com.
SAVE THE DATE

MAY 18-21, 2009

LAS VEGAS

WE LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING YOU BULLDOG EQUIPMENT
Bulldog Equipment designs and manufactures custom
NEXT YEAR equipment for the U.S. military. Our solutions are based upon
the needs of the soldier. Our goal is to offer products that are
mission-critical and to assure the customer that we will provide
the finest equipment. All of our equipment is made in the USA
and constructed with all-American components.

Our vision at Bulldog Equipment is to ensure the highest

standards of safety and reliability while enhancing the soldiers’
performance.

For more information, please visit www.bulldogequipment.us.

 Technical Evaluation, Operational
Evaluation, Lessons Learned in
Small Arms Procurement

Joe Abram
Small Arms Weapons Division
Joint Weapons Engineering Branch
SOF weapons Section

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Introduction
• Operational Acceptance, as a requirement, is the best
way to assure the product is “Mission Acceptable”. Our
latest weapon systems (MK16, MK17, and MK13) had a
strong user focus to allow multiple modifications to the
design during various testing scenarios, thus ensuring
the weapon system is the best it can be.

• The old way of only testing weapons in a laboratory

environment has taken a back seat. As the value of
operational testing becomes more familiar, we must
learn to attain technical data from operational testing.

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Test Plan

• Test Phase I
– Down select/Safety
• Test Phase II
– User Assessment/Design Development
• Test Phase III
– Pre-Operational Test/Design Prove-out
• Test Phase IV
– Operational Testing/Final Design Review

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Phase I

• Source Selection Testing

– Go/No-Go type testing
• Does it meet minimum requirements of the
solicitation?
– Safety testing
• Does it meet the safety requirements to allow use
by the operators?
– User Assessment
• Operational evaluation to assist in down select.

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Major Components (Go/No-Go)

MK16 MK13 Ancillary Stock

MK17 MK13 w/Trigger Assembly

Accessories/Cleaning Kit

Suppressor
Magazines Fire Control Unit

BFA

Bipod

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Accuracy (Go/No-Go)

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Drain Time (Safety)

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 User Assessment

Conducted at Camp Pendleton, Camp Billy Machen,

and San Clemente Island

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Source Selection

•Go/No-Go testing was the first cut in

the Source Selection Process.

•Vendors passing the Go/No-Go testing

proceeded to Safety Testing to allow
operators to complete an Early User
Assessment of all the weapons.

•After completing the Early User

Assessment by the Operators, the
program was reduced to one vendor by
the Source Selection Committee.

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Engineering Review

•Following the Source Selection, an engineering review was

conducted at the vendor facility. (Operators in direct contact
with design team.)

•Vendor’s project team met with Contracting

Representatives, Program management, and Operators.

•Meeting was conducted to expedite the weapon

development.

•Results from this review were implemented in the weapon

design and samples were delivered for further
testing/development.

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Phase II
• Prepare for Milestone C Decision
– Technical testing
• NAVSEA CRANE
• ARMY ARDEC
• NATICK
• FN HERSTAL

– Pre-Operational Assessment
• Camp Billy Machen
• San Clemente Island
• Camp Pendelton

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Technical Testing
Conducted at NSWC Crane, IN

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Environmental Technical Testing
Conducted at US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 JUMP CERTIFICATION
Conducted at NATICK

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Technical Testing
Conducted at FN HERSTAL
scar 2 b.mpg

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Pre-Operational Assessment
Conducted at Camp Pendleton, Camp Billy Machen
& San Clemente Island, CA

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 MILESTONE C

• Milestone C was achieved at the

end of Phase II allowing the
program to progress to Phase III.

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Phase III

• Prepare for Operational Testing

– Additional testing used to verify any
changes made prior to the
Operational Test.
• Camp Pendleton
• Camp Billy Machen
• NAVSEA CRANE

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Operational Assessment
Conducted at Camp Pendleton & Camp Billy
Machen, CA

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Operation Assessment
Conducted at NAVSEA CRANE

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Phase IV

• Operational Testing
– Final Testing Prior to Fielding
• Fort Benning-Rangers
• Camp Lejuene-MARSOC
• Stennis Space Center-NSW
• MCMWTC-NSW/SF
• Avon Park

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Operational Testing – Urban
Conducted at Ft. Benning, GA & Ft. Knox, KY

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Operational Testing – Rural/Maritime
Conducted at Camp Lejuene, NC

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Operational Testing – Jungle/Maritime
Conducted at Stennis Space Center, MS

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Operational Testing – Mountain/Cold
Conducted at MCMWTC, Bridgeport, CA

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Final Changes

• After conclusion of the many phases of operational

testing, Engineering Changes were requested to satisfy
the needs of the operator community.

• The design Engineering Change Proposals are

implemented and tested in a laboratory environment.

• When changes are approved, a final test was conducted

to confirm the changes in an operational environment.

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Closing

• Crane has done as much as can be accomplished to pull

technical data from operational testing. We have
combined developmental and operational testing to
support technical testing goals. We have used this data
to set the standards on the weapon for such things as
parts replacement and service life in real world
situations.
• This allows us to attain the data we have always needed,
but now the data is attained from real world situations
with operators, giving the data validity during use.

UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
 Contact Information
Paul Miller
Project Manager
Commercial: 812-854-6654 DSN 482-6654
Email: paul.b.miller@navy.mil

Troy Smith
USSOCOM SOF Weapons Program Manager
Commercial: 812-854-5858 DSN 482-5858
Email: troy.smith2@navy.mil

Joe Abram
Project Engineer
Commercial 812-854-3075 DSN 482-3075
Email: joe.abram@navy.mil

29
UNCLASSIFIED
Distribution Statement A: Approved For Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
NATO Infantry Weapons
Standardization

Per G. Arvidsson
Chairman
Weapons & Sensors Working Group
Land Capability Group 1 - Dismounted Soldier
NATO Army Armaments Group
Tel: +46-8-782 4181, Fax: +46-8-782 6412
E-mail: per.arvidsson@fmv.se
Web-site: www.fmv.se
Future NATO small arms?
The first NATO infantry weapons STANAG

STANAG 2324 on “Rules governing the interchangeability of

securing and holding devices for infra-red scopes on carbines,
rifles and light machine guns” from 1961, cancelled in 1979.
 History of 5.56 NATO
• In 1970 NATO decided to try to standardize a
common rifle and a second caliber to 7.62mm.
• During 1976-1979 they therefore performed
mutual tests with rifles and ammunition in West
Germany and Canada.
• The calibers tested were:
– 5.56mm rounds with increased
penetration from USA and BEL.
– GBR 4.85mm round.
– DEU 4.7mm caseless round.

USA GBR DEU BEL

5.56 4.85 4.7 5.56
XM777 SS109
NATO rifle and ammunition trials 1976-1979

Country Weapon Caliber (mm) Ammunition

Germany G11 4.7 4.7 caseless
United Kingdom 4.85 IW 4.85 4.85
Belgium FNC 5.56 SS109
Netherlands MN 1 (Stoner 63) 5.56 M193
United States M16A1 5.56 XM777
France FAMAS 5.56 F1 brass and steel
cased (M193 type)
United States (control) M16A1 5.56 M193
Germany (control) G3 7.62 7.62 NATO
 The results
• No weapon could be agreed upon.
• Some were in their prototype status.
• The BEL SS109 round was found to be the best,
and was standardized as NATO’s second rifle
caliber in 1980.
Proposed standardization

STANAG 4172

Draft STANAG 4181

Draft STANAG 4179

 There is no NATO rifle!
• During the tests the US M16A1 was a control
weapon.
• You can often see reference to:
– NATO magazine.
– NATO flash hider.
– NATO bayonet.
• There is currently no such thing!
 NATO Nominated Weapons
• NNW’s are used as reference when new
ammunition is standardized.
• As of 2008 the 5.56mm rifles are:
– FNC, Belgium
– G36, Germany
– AR70/90, Italy
– L85A2, United Kingdom
– M16A2, USA
• A new NNW must work with all qualified
5.56mm ammunition designs.
 5.56mm NATO Ball Qualified Designs
NATO Design Sponsoring Head Stamp Publication Manufacturer
Number Country Initials Date
AC/225-111A USA LC 30/06/1987 GOCO, Lake City, USA
WCC Olin Winchester USA
TAA 205th Arsenal, Taiwan
AC/116-112A BEL FNB 14/11/1989 Fabrique Nationale, Belgium
AC/225-113A ITA SMI 12/04/1990 Europa Metalli, Italy
AC/225-114A GBR RG 14/08/1995 Royal Ordnance, United Kingdom
AC/225-116A BEL FNB 16/11/1995 Giat Industrie, France
AC/225-117A NLD HP 15/05/1996 Hirtenberger, Austria
AC/225-118A CAN IVI 17/01/1997 GD-OTS, Canada
AC/225-120A POR FNM 31/08/1998 Indep, Portugal
AC/225-122A ITA GFL 11/01/1999 Fiocchi, Italy
AC/225-124A GBR RG 24/02/1999 Royal Ordnance, United Kingdom
AC/225-125A DEU DAG 10/03/2000 RUAG, Germany
MEN MEN, Germany
AC/225-126A BEL, FRA IMI 10/03/2000 IMI, Israel
AC/225-127A SPA SB 26/09/2000 Santa Barbara, Spain
AC/225-128A NOR CG 6/07/2004 NAMMO, Sweden
AC/225-130A LIT GGG 26/05/2005 GGG, Lithuania
AC/225-132A GBR RG 27/01/2006 BAE Systems Radway Green, United Kingdom
AC/225-133A GBR RG 30/01/2006 BAE Systems Radway Green, United Kingdom
 CRISAT
• During the early nineties an extensive work was performed
by LG/3 (then named Panel III) called “Program for
Collaborative Research Into Small Arms Technology”
(CRISAT).
• Seven areas were studied.
• A report was published in 1994.
• The results were used to develop STANAG’s and the D/7
document “Infantry Small Arms Post-2000” (NATO
AC/225(LG/3)D/7).
US: Technology Area 1: Target Definition
UK: Technology Area 2: Terminal Effects
FR: Technology Area 3: Target Acquisition
US: Technology Area 4: Materials
GE: Technology Area 5: Propellants
US: Technology Area 8: Power & Electronics Systems
UK: Technology Area 9: Analysis of Effectiveness
STANAG 4512
Dismounted personnel target
 LCG/1 STANAG’s
Prom.
STANAG Title
Date
2310 Small Arms Ammo. (7.62mm) 11-76
2329 Links for 7.62mm Ammo (AOP-3) 04-82
4090 Small Arms Ammo. (9mm) 04-82
4172 Small Arms Ammo (5.56mm) 05-93
4173 25mm x 137mm AFV Cannon Ammo 04-86
4383 Small Arms Ammo. (12.7mm) 07-01
4403 Standard 40mm Grenades - High Velocity
4498 Unarmoured Vehicles, Helicopters & Field 04-04
Fortification Targets
4512 Dismounted Personnel Targets 04-04
4513 Incapacitation & Suppression 04-04
4536 Representative Building Targets 04-04
4619 Electrical connectivity standards for
dismounted soldier systems
 STANAG 4512 dismounted
personnel targets
• A “NATO protected” man is defined, but there is a lack
of a ”NATO unprotected man”.
• We are going to replaced the cold war Soviet body
armor with:
– Soft body armor.
– Modern ceramic body armor.
• We will also standardize a witness pack for fragments.
It will be based on the GBR BAE.
 New proposed standardizations
• Up until now all NATO small arms
standardization has been ammunition.
• We will now recommend standardization of:
– NATO Rail
– NATO Magazines
– NATO Muzzle Thread
– NATO Flash Hider Diameter
– NATO Bayonet Attachment
– NATO Accessory Attachment
Participating industries:
•Aimpoint
•Beretta
•Colt
•Fabrique National
•Heckler & Koch
Weapon rail history

Desert Storm 1991:

Clamping and duct tape…

1995 US MIL-STD-1913

2010 Powered NATO Rail

Proposed NATO rail
 The next step is the NATO powered rail
• Centralized power is the key for the future!
• CAN, DEU, SWE and USA have all placed
contracts with companies to develop powered
rail demonstrators.
• Different technologies are being studied.

Swedish ak 5C powered rail demonstrator

Questions?
 Product Manager Crew Served Weapons
Overview
For the
Small Arms Symposium & Exhibition
National Defense Industrial Association

BG R. Mark Brown 19-22 May 2008 LTC Michael Ascura

Program Executive Officer Soldier PM Crew Served Weapons
M240E6, Medium Machine Gun Weight
Reduction Program

2
 Background

ƒ M240B Selected In 1996

– Superior Reliability Performance Compared To The M60
– Weight Of 27.5 lbs
– MANPRINT And Human Factors Engr Assessments Identified Weight As A
Corrective Action
ƒ IMMG ORD -- Approved Oct 1999
– 24 lb Threshold / 20 lb Objective Weight
– P3I for Weight Reduction
ƒ 4 lb (T) / 7 lb (O) Weight Reduction
ƒ No Decrease In Weapon Reliability
ƒ Post Combat Surveys Continually Note Weight Of The M240B As The Only
Point Of Dissatisfaction With Performance

3
 M240E6 Comparison

ƒ M240E6 Weight Reduction Focused Upon:

– Receiver Assembly (Riveted Titanium / Steel)
– Barrel Assembly (Reduced Contour; Lightweight
Gas System, Sight & Handle)
– Trigger Housing (Composite Construction;
Swing-Down Trigger Guard)
ƒ Weapon Weights: (Measured)
– M240B: 27.4 lb
– M240E6: 22.3 lb

Weight Savings

Receiver 3.2 lb

Barrel 1.4 lb

Trigger Frame 0.5 lb

4
 Program Milestones

ƒ Milestone B Approved 22 March 2005

ƒ System development and demonstration contract award in Sep 2005
ƒ Test and evaluation 2007 through Mar 2008
ƒ Type Classification Limited Procurement – 3QFY08
ƒ Type Classification Standard / Materiel Release – 3QFY10
ƒ First Unit Equipped – 3QFY10

5
 M2
Machine Gun
Enhancements

6
 Legacy System: M2 Brief History
Army Competitive
Contract
FY08-FY12
Army Releases
Solicitation
For QCB Kit
Army Contract
For 2,587 2008
Guns

Type Classified 2007

.50 Cal Browning (M1921) Standard
Renamed The M2; A
Modified To 2007
Increase Barrel Mass
And
Replaced Buffer
1958
Cavalry Board established
performance
requirements
.50 cal Browning 1933
adopted for use on
Aircraft and
named M1921

Air cooled caliber 1931

.50 Browning
Was first
fired
1923

1918
7
 Legacy System: M2 Machine Gun

ƒ The M2 MG Is An Automatic, Recoil-operated, Link-Belt-Fed, Air-Cooled Weapon

That Has Been Standard Issue Since 1923
- Weapon Remained Relatively Unchanged Since 1933

ƒ Current M2 Has Several Limitations:

- Requires Soldiers To Manually Set Headspace And Timing
Every Time A Barrel Is Inserted
- Improper Adjustment Can Damage The Weapon And Injure
The User
- Barrel Changing Procedures Negatively Impact Survivability
- Soldiers Are Exposed To Enemy Fire For Extended Time Periods

ƒ Increase In M2 Incidences Resulting In Soldiers Improperly Setting Headspace

And Timing On The Weapon
- 45 H&T Malfunctions Out Of 77 Between 2007-May 2008

8
 Near Term Solution: M2E2

ƒ An Enhancement To The .50 Cal M2 To Include A Fixed Headspace And Timing

Configuration And Be As Reliable (If Not Better) Than Current M2

ƒ Upgrades Can Be Fitted On Existing M2 Weapons During M2 Overhaul SARET

Fieldings, Etc.

ƒ New Production Weapons To Include Proven Design

ƒ The M2A1 (The Type Classified M2 w/QCB) May Include (Not Limited To)
Several Enhancements:
– Modified Barrel
– Barrel Extension
– Barrel Support
– Barrel Carrying Handle
– Flash Suppressor
– Fixed Headspace And Timing Configuration

9
 M2E2 Program Status

ƒ Requirement Is Currently Being Competed

ƒ Bid Sample Hardware Is Undergoing Testing At Aberdeen

Proving Grounds, MD

ƒ Government Will Down Select To One Vendor- July 2008

ƒ Government Will Award RDT&E Contract For Kits (35) For Production
Qualification Testing And User Assessments

ƒ Type Classification–standard/FRP Decision – August 09

Path Forward:
ƒ Production Kits To Be Introduced Thru Overhaul
ƒ Kits To Be Cut Into New Weapon Production
ƒ New Configuration (M2A1) To Be Fielded To Brigade Sets

10
 M2E2 Program Milestones

Approved Capabilities Production Document December 2006

Release Request for Proposal October 2007
Receive Bid Samples November 2007
Perform Bid Sample Testing November – June 2008
Down Select July 2008
Contract Award for DT/LUE hardware October 2008
Production Verification Test December–May 2009
Safety Release November 2008
Limited User Evaluation January 2009
Test Reports/ SER June-July 2009
MS C / Type Classification August 2009
Production Contract Award October 2009
FUE July 2010

11
 Additional M2 Enhancements

Current Enhancements:

1. Incorporating A Trigger Block To The Back Plate Assembly To

Prevent Inadvertent Firings
3
1= Backplate
2= Flatspring
1 2
3= Trigger Block
4= Shoulder Screw
4

2. Trigger And Bolt Latch Release Will Be Replaced On

Back Plates With Interference

3. Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) Approved For FY07 M2

Gun Production

3. All Future Production To Contain Trigger Blocks

12
 Additional M2 Enhancements (cont.)

Near Term Enhancements:

ƒ Thermal Weapon Sight Brackets (TWS With Side Rails) Provided To PM

Sensors And Lasers For Fielding

ƒ Investigating Material Change Of Headspace And Timing Gages To Lower

Cost, Increase Corrosion Resistance And Dimensional Stability

ƒ Change M2 Rear Sight Markings From Yards To Meters

13
 Additional Near Term Solution:
Lightweight/Low Recoil 50 Cal Machine Gun

Description:
ƒ Lightweight, Low Recoil, 2-man Portable,
Vehicle And Ground Mounted .50 Caliber
Crew Served Weapon System

Capabilities:
ƒ Provides The Warfighter The Ability To
Bring Heavy Machine Gun Lethality In
A Medium Machine Gun Form/Weight Factor
ƒ Fires All .50 Caliber Service Ammunition With M9 Links
ƒ 50-60% Lower Weight And 60-75% Lower Recoil Than M2
ƒ Fixed Headspace And Timing
ƒ Quick Change Barrel <15 sec

Program Status:
ƒ Contract Awarded To General Dynamics Armament And Technical Products
To Complete Objective Weapon Design And Build 3 Weapons.
ƒ Early User Assessment For SOCOM Completed 9 May. Two Prototype Weapons
Fired 10,000 Rounds Over Three Days
14
CROWS

15
 CROWS Background

ƒ Capability Production Document

Approved August 2005

ƒ Currently 243 CROWS In Operation

– M1114
– M93 FOX
– M1A2 TUSK

ƒ Competitive Contract Awarded

August 2007
– Five Year ID/IQ Contract For Up To 6,500 Systems
– Includes Interim Contractor Logistics Support (ICLS)
And Depot Capability

16
 CROWS System Description

ƒ Weight: W/O Weapon And Ammo

– Above The Roof: 320 Lbs (w/o Armor Kit)
ƒ Total System Weight: 430 Lbs
ƒ Rate Of Production: 120/month
(capable of 300/month In early 09) if required
ƒ Supported Weapons:
- MK19 (96 rds), - M2 (400 rds),
- M240 (1000 rds), - M249 (2000 rds)
ƒ Platforms: M114/M1151, M93 FOX, RG-31,
RG-33, Buffalo, JERRV, M1A2 TUSK,FCS,
JLTV, Stryker

Capabilities:
ƒ Four-axis targeting system
ƒ Three-axis vector stabilization
ƒ Day camera: 27X w/47 degree FOV
ƒ Thermal dual FOV (3 & 11 degrees)
w/ 2X E-zoom
ƒ Auto focus (day and thermal)
ƒ Auto tracker/auto lead/auto scan
ƒ Laser range finder
ƒ User programmable inhibits Control Grip (CG) Fire Control Unit (FCU)
17
 CROWS - Lightning

System Description:
A Lightweight Stabilized Remote Weapon Station (RWS) Which Provides Day
And Night Operations. Includes A Laser Range Finder And Ballistic Fire Control
System For Accurate Engagements. System Is Capable Of Mounting The
M240B Or M249 Machine Gun.

Objective:
Procure Four Systems In Support Of An Operational Assessment To Evaluate
The Effectiveness Of A Lightweight RWS For Future Use On Various Combat
And Support Vehicles.

Future:
Requirement For A Lightweight RWS Is TBD Pending Evaluation, Analysis And
Approval.
18
 M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System
(SASS) Overview

Description:
ƒ Addresses M24 Sniper System & M144 Spotting Scope Shortcomings
ƒ Rapid Fire/Rapid Reload, Suppressed Sniper Rifle
ƒ Effective Against Personnel and Light Materiel Targets Out To 800m
ƒ Supplements Sniper’s Role To Support Combat Operations
ƒ Greater Firepower, Configurability/Versatility, Improves Sniper
Survivability
Capabilities:
ƒ Greater, Quicker, Focused Firepower with Increased Flexibility
ƒ Ability to “stay on the scope/stay on the gun” for target rich (urban)
environments and against moving/fleeting targets
ƒ Additional Responsiveness and Versatility
ƒ Easily Adaptable RSTA Systems For All-Weather, Day/Night Operation
ƒ Increases Sniper Team Lethality, Survivability and Mission Flexibility
Program History:
ƒ HQDA Approved Requirements: 23 Jun 04
ƒ Contract Award: 26 Sep 05
ƒ First Unit Equipped: 14 Nov 07
Basis of Issue: 1:1 replacement for every Sniper Team M24 SWS
Contractor: Knight’s Armaments Company, Titusville, FL

19
 Upcoming Competitive
Opportunities
ƒ XM205 Lightweight Tripod for Heavy Machine Guns
– Modified COTS/NDI approach
– Performance based competition
– 100% small business set aside
– Anticipate 1Q09 award

ƒ M2 .50 Caliber Machine Gun

– Compete the Gov’t owned M2 Technical Data Package
– Anticipate multiple contract awards
– 20% small business set aside
– Anticipate 4Q08 award

ƒ MK93 Mod 2 Dual Mount

– Compete the Gov’t owned MK93 Technical Data Package
– Anticipate multiple contract awards
– 100% small business set aside
– Anticipate 1Q09 award

Monitor procnet at http://procnet.pica.army.mil

20
 Project Manager Soldier Weapons
Overview
For the
Small Arms Symposium & Exhibition
National Defense Industrial Association

BG R. Mark Brown 19-22 May 2008 Mr. Richard Audette

Program Executive Officer Soldier
Deputy PM Soldier Weapons
 Program Executive Office Soldier
As of 19 Feb 2008 Executive Office Manager (PEO)
PEO Karen Boulware (703) 704-3446
Congressional BG R. Mark Brown Executive Officer (PEO)
Affairs MAJ Burr Miller (703) 704-0228
Kathryn Yurkanin G1:Dir, Personnel
(703) 704-0024 Stephanie Jarrett Sergeant Major (PEO)
(703) 704-0726 SGM Thomas Coleman (508) 233-4489
G3: Dir,
Operations & Plans Executive Assistant (DPEO)
G5: Strategic
Kurt Frulla
Communications/ PAO
DPEO Lois Kennedy (703) 704-0228
(703) 704-0594 William R. Smith
Debi Dawson
G6: CIO (703)704-2802 Department of the Army
DPEO Reserve Affairs Systems
Liaison Coordinator (DASC)
Officers
COL Mae A. King (SWAR) - Drex Dodge (703) 602-7596
(703) 704-1025 G7: Dir, Systems (SEQ) – David Nelson (703) 602-7601
Integration (SW) - Shelby Stevens (703) 602-7610
Ross Guckert (SW) – Fred Callies (703) 602-3147
(703) 704-3310
G8: Dir, Business
Management
Larry Hames Contracts
(703) 704-1699 Management
Bob Tiedeman
(703) 704-4973

Project Manager Project Manager Project Manager Director

Project Manager
Soldier Weapons Soldier Warrior Soldier Equipment Rapid Fielding Initiative
Soldier Weapons
COL Lipsit COL Hansen COL McGuiness COL Conley
(973) 724-6560 (703) 704-3819 (703) 704-3322 (703) 704-3776

DPM Soldier Weapons

DPM Soldier Weapons DPM Soldier Warrior DPM Soldier Equipment DD Rapid Fielding Initiative
Rich Audette Bill Brower Al Dassonville Sam Parrish
(973) 724-2062 (703) 704-2888 (703) 704-3324 (703) 704-2118

PM Individual Weapons PM Air Warrior PM Clothing & Equipment Operations

CONUS
PM Crew Served Weapons PM Land Warrior PM Sensor & Lasers Logistics Iraq
PM Soldier Survivability Fielding Afghanistan 2
Soldier Weapons Mission

3
 PM Soldier Weapons Programs List
DEVELOPMENT PROCUREMENT
WEAPONS 24. M151E1 & M151E2 Protector Remote Weapon System (RWS)
1. XM25, Individual High Explosive Air Burst Weapon System Technology 25. MK19, Grenade Machine Gun
Demonstration
26. MK19 MODS
2. XM101, Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS)
27. Mod Kit
28. Lightweight Adjustable Sight Bracket
SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS 29. Tactical Engagement Simulator (TES)
3. M26, 12 Gauge Modular Accessory Shotgun System (MASS) 30. M107 Semi Automatic Long Range Sniper Rifle
4. M68 Close Combat Optics Re-competition 31. M240B/H/E6, 7.62mm Medium MG
5. XM1116, 12 Gauge Extended Range Non-Lethal Cartridge 32. M240B MODS
6. XM1022, Sniper Ammunition For M107 33. M192, Light Weight Ground Mount For MG
7. M110, 7.62 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) 34. Improved Bipod
8. Close Quarters Battle (CQB) Kit 35. M240B Collapsible Buttstock
9. XM1041/XM1042/XM1071 - Close Combat Mission Capability Kit 36. Improved Flash Suppressor
(M4/M16/M249/M9/M11) 37. Combat Ammunition Pack
10. Advanced Sniper Accessory Kit (ASAK) 38. M240B Short Barrel
11. XM320, Grenade Launcher Module (GLM) 39. M240B Improved Buttstock
12. M2 A12 Quick Change Barrel Kit Program 40. Sling Assembly For The M240B
BLOCK MOD PROGRAMS 41. M249, 5.56mm Squad Automatic Weapon
13. CROWS-Lightning Remote Weapons Station 42. M249 MODS
14. XM150, Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) 43. M192, Lightweight Ground Mount For MG
15. M2E2 Machine Gun Lightweight Tripod Program 44. MG Front Rails
16. Swing Arm Mount For HMMWVs 45. Improved Bipod
17. HMMWV Improved Auxiliary Weapon Mount 46. M249 Improved Collapsible Buttstock
18. XM240E6, Medium Machine Gun Weight Reduction Program 47. Short Barrel For The M249
19. M249 SAW 200 Round Soft Pack 48. Sling Assembly For M249
49. M16A4 5.56mm Rifle
AMMO BLOCK MOD PROGRAMS 50. M16 Rifle Mods
20. XM1037, Short Range Training Round For M4, M16 and M249 51. M68 Close Combat Optics (CCO)
21. Lightweight Small Caliber Ammunition 52. Close Quarters Battle (CQB) Kit (Production)
22. Proximity Fuzed Door Breaching Cartridge 53. M4, 5.56mm Carbine
23. 40mm Day Night Training Cartridge (FCT) 54. M4 Mods
55. M145 Machine Gun Optics
56. M25 Stabilized Binoculars
57. M24 Mini Binocular
RFI FY08 ITEMS
ƒ TA31 - 4X ACOG (RCO) ƒ Back Up Iron Sight AMMO PRODUCTION PROGRAMS*
ƒ M24 Small Binoculars ƒ Multiple Magazine Holder 58. M903/M962 Cal .50 SLAP/SLAPT
ƒ Laser Rangefinder (from XM320) ƒ Forward Rail Bracket (Mini Rail) 59. M1001, 40mm Canister Round
ƒ M249/M240B Spare Barrel Bag ƒ M249 Ammo Soft Pack (100 and 200 rds) 60. M100, Grenade Rifle Entry Munition (GREM)
ƒ Three Point Sling ƒ M240B Combat Ammo Pack (50 rds) 61. M862 5.56mm Short Range Training Ammunition
ƒ Improved Spotting Scope With Tripod ƒ M192 Lightweight Tripod 62. M1030 12 Gauge Breaching Round
ƒ Improved Cleaning Kit ƒ M249 Short Barrel 63. M973/M974, 7.62 Short Range Training Ammo
ƒ Improved Buttstock For M4 Carbine ƒ M249 Collapsible Buttstock 64. M992 IR Illumination Cartridge
ƒ Forward Grip Bipod ƒ Improved M4/M16 Magazine 65. M281 40mm Target Practice Cartridge
ƒ M203 Day/Night Sight ƒ Improved M249 Collapsible Buttstock
ƒ M68 Close Combat Optic
*Programs
Programs Managed
Managed By
By PM
PM Soldier
Soldier Weapons
Weapons
For
For PEO
PEO Ammunition
Ammunition In
In Accordance
Accordance With
With MOA
MOA 44
 Soldier Weapons Fieldings
(1 August 2002 – 31 March 2008)
79,515 Soldiers In 12 BCTs And 19 EABs FY2008
1,082,659 Soldiers In 112 BCTs & 201 EABs Total
Total Total
Issued Issued
FY08 to 8/02- FY08 to 8/02-
Weapon/Item FY07 date 12/07 Weapon/Item FY07 date 12/07

M4 Carbine 72147 17030 183282 M203 Day/Night sight 10961 5461 27503
M16 Series Rifle 7383 2369 65774 Modular Weapon System Kit (M4 ARS) 18168 963 32922
M500 Shotgun 2822 789 15866 Modular Weapon System Kit (M5 ARS) 3768 49 15016
M107 Sniper Weapon System 165 84 2210 M4 Forward Grip Bipod 11354 54420 73588
M249 Machine Gun 3651 2716 23204 M4 Improved Buttstock 2525 1437 10167
M240B Machine Gun 5446 2049 21922 M4/M16 Improved Cleaning Kit 12510 53065 65575
M240H Aviation Machine Gun 728 111 3925 Multipurpose Tool 0 0 166597
Mk19 Grenade Machine Gun 895 639 4419 M192 Lightweight Ground Mount 5340 1327 11116
M2 Machine Gun 3894 1710 17202 Improved Spotting Scope 168 80 1488
M9 Pistol 8698 5266 33518 M24 Small Binoculars 20366 11075 89264
M203 Series Grenade Launcher 6014 1930 13868 M145 Machine Gun Optic 3511 797 31371
M14 Rifle 509 50 5406 M249 Rail 7326 213 32262
M79 Grenade Laundcher 0 0 77 M249 Short Barrel 16078 1734 42686
CROWS 185 ? 261 M249/M240B Spare Barrel Bag 14760 4366 41009
Backup Iron Sight 58860 26055 251881 M249 Collapsible Buttstock 10968 4004 23329
M68 CCO 55418 815 301476 M249 Soft Ammo Pack (100 Round) 14894 6614 66959
M68 CCO Comp M4 37701 31066 68779 M249 Soft Ammo Pack (200 Round) 9515 900 25605
M9 Magazine 0 0 131933 M240B Rail 0 0 3281
M4/M16 Magazine 0 0 1703544 M240B Combat Ammo Pack 7207 763 18622
3 Point Sling 145448 15413 322043 Forward Rail Bracket (Mini Rail) 1921 15868 17789
ACOGS (All variants) 14326 0 14326 Multiple Magazine Holder 11660 37778 49438
5
6
 USAF
Combat Weapons
Program Colonel Charles Beck
HQ AFSFC/SFX
DSN 945-0101
COMM 210-925-0101

Integrity - Service - Excellence 1

 USAF Modular Handgun System

• Vision
• Procure a new handgun for USAF that meets all combat
requirements and provides increased capabilities
• Focus on AF operational needs with joint partnerships
• Ensure combat needs of all AF users addressed
• Capitalize on emerging technology
• Close capability gaps with current handguns
• Goals
• Provide Airmen with a more effective handgun
• Increased permanent wound channel volume, given
minimum penetration
• Use readily available military cartridge
• Use commercial/non-developmental solution
• Take advantage of industry’s new handgun technologies

Integrity - Service - Excellence 2

 USAF Modular Handgun System

• Desired Capabilities and New Technologies

• Optimum incapacitation potential on the battlefield based on
increased wounding effect with larger non-expanding fully
jacketed bullets
• Enhanced corrosion control; reduced operator maintenance
• More shooter friendly, ergonomic design for average to small
hands; reduced felt recoil, enhancing shooter accuracy
• Size options (standard, compact, etc.) to accommodate certain
missions (aircrew, OSI, Personal Security Officer) in same model
• Modular grip panels/inserts (operator ability to adjust grip size)
• External safety controls on receiver
• Ambidextrous controls (safety, magazine release, slide stop)

Integrity - Service - Excellence 3

 USAF Modular Handgun System

• Quantities needed and acquisition timeline

• AF requirement is ~ 100,600 pistols and associated ammo
• Key milestones/decision points:
• AF Requirements for Operational Capabilities Council – Approved
• AF Capabilities Production Document (CPD) – Approved
• Joint CPD – Approved
• Joint Requirements Oversight Council – Approved for Joint Interest
• Sources Sought Announcement to industry – Posted on FedBiz Ops
• Acquisition strategy – being worked by Army to support AF
• Release Request for Proposal (RFP) for test articles with options for
production – Pending
• Execute initial down-select from RFP submissions – Pending
• Complete test, final down-select and award contract – Pending

Integrity - Service - Excellence 4

 Summary

• AF procuring 100,600 COTS/NDI handguns

• Army, Executive Agent/Air Force, capabilities sponsor
• Army will lead acquisition management (contracting,
engineering, business management, testing, supportability
planning, program management and milestone decision auth
• AF responsible for funding, source selection authority,
evaluation board members, capabilities document
management, training package development and logistics
integration for AF unique needs
• Provide Airmen a handgun with increased permanent
wound channel volume and capitalize on industry’s
new handgun technologies

Integrity - Service - Excellence 5

Approved for Public Release
 Less Than Lethal Project ,
a further option for the
challenges of the future

A Joint program between the

Italian Ministry of Defence and
Fabbrica d ’Armi Pietro Beretta spa
d’Armi
• Beretta in the “ Less than Lethal program “
• Our targets
• Technological Demonstrator
• Human Engineering e Integration
 Beretta in the Program “Less Than Lethal “

• The Italian Ministry of Defence launched in 2001 a R&D program called

“ Less Than Lethal “ to complete its effort of enhancing the combat capability
in peace keeping and international police operations within the innovative
program “ Soldier of the Future “ .
• December 2002. A contract was signed between Beretta and Italian M.O.D. for
the development of a technological demonstrator of a Less Than Lethal
weapon system.
• April 2006 : The first three technological demonstrators have been successfully
tested and accepted by the Italian Army .
• 2007 : user trials to be carried out for doctrine assessment of use of LTL
weapon system .
• 2008: Limited fielding of the system within the IMOD
 Technological Demonstrator
•A more ergonomic design study which includes a
collapsable/ foldable stock is foreseen for the
production runs
The sub systems

launcher

Sigth / Range finder

Ammunition
 Our targets
To develop a technological concept which will include a
launcher , a dedicated ammunition and optical sight for a
less than lethal weapon system to demonstrate the
possibility to deliver the same kinetic energy within a range
from 15 meters (49.3 ft ) up to 70 meters (230 ft ) :
– Ergonomics ( similar to a traditional shotgun)
– Blunt trauma analysis ( for effective less than lethal
capability )
– Constant Kinetic Energy principle using traditional
propellant ammunition
– Basic and cost effective range estimation system.
 External ballistics

Accuracy :
39.3” 230ft
Target H+L= 1000 mm ( at 70 meters ) 500 mm

230 ft 500 mm
49.3 ft

70 mt 15 mt 0
 Terminal ballistics, blunt trauma analysis

Max E less than 60 ÷ 80 J

Confidential
 Constant Kinetic Energy principle

230 ft 49.3 ft
70 mt 15 mt 0

E = 60 / 80 J E=60 / 80 J

Confidential
 HDSSP projectile
High Deformation Spin Stabilized Projectile
 Range estimation
49.3 ft

15 meters 70 meters 230 ft

 Constant Kinetic Energy principle

230 ft 49.3 ft
70 mt 15 mt 0

E = 60 / 80 J E=60 / 80 J

Confidential
 NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION DU TRAITE DE L’ ATLANTIC NORD
AC/225 Land Capability Group 1
Dismounted Soldier

LCol Mike Bodner, CANADA

Chairman
 NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVES NATO UNCLASSIFIED
(AMBASSADORS TO NATO)
MILITARY
REPRESENTATIVES
TO NATO
DPC NAC NPG
SG
DEFENCE PLANNING NORTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL NUCLEAR PLANNING
MC SECRETARY GENERAL
COMMITTEE GROUP
MILITARY COMMITTEE

SRB
NCS PMSC/PfP PCG AC/119 DRC CBC AC/322 AC/92 AC/328
NATO COMMITTEE FOR
HLSG SENIOR RESOURCE NADC NPC
POLITICAL POLICY PC DEFENCE BOARD CIVIL NATMC SPS
HIGH LEVEL NATO NATO
STANDARDISATION MILITARY
STEERING
COORDINATION
GROUP STEERING
POLITICAL
COMMITTEE REVIEW BUDGET NC3B AIR PIPELINE
NATO COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE ON GROUP COMMITTEE NATO DEFENCE COMMITTEE
PARTNERSHIP AIR TRAFFIC ON SCIENCE
NSA FOR PEACE COMMITTEE CONSULTATION COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT FOR PEACE
COMMAND AND COMMITTEE AND
NATO STANDARDISATION MBC AC/4
CONTROL BOARD SECURITY
AGENCY AC/305 AC/119 AC/281 EWG MILITARY
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
SNLC SPC EXECUTIVE
BUDGET
NC3A NCSA NACMA
POLITICAL COMMITTEE NATO Communications
SENIOR NATO COMMITTEE
NATO C3 NATO ACCS
LOGISTICIANS’ WORKING GROUP & Information Systems MANAGEMENT
AT SENIOR AGENCY
CONFERENCE LEVEL Services Agency AGENCY

AC/127
ACT M&TG ECONOMIC AC/259
ACO LSM AC/98(SCEPC)-SENIOR CIVIL EMERGENCY
MOVEMENT COMMITTEE OTHER
ALLIED COMMAND
TRANSFORMATION
ALLIED LOG IMG
LOGISTICS
AND
TRANSPORTAT
ION GROUP
LOGISTIC
STAFF
MEETING
CNAD COMMITTEES*
COMMITTEE
Subordinate committees:
AC/15(PBIST)-PLANNING BOARD FOR INLAND
CPB - CHEMISTRY /PHYSICS/ BIOLOGY PANEL
ESP - ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PANEL
HSD - HUMAN AND SOCIETAL DYNAMICS PANEL
COMMAND INFORMATION CONFERENCE OF NATIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORT
AC/23(CPC)-CIVIL PROTECTION COMMITTEE
ICS - INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SECURITY
PANEL
SCPI OPERATIONS AC/25(FAPC)-FOOD AND AGRICULTURE PLANNING
STRATEGIC CONCEPTS
MANAGEMENT
ARMAMENTS DIRECTORS COMMITTEE
GROUP
POLICY AND
INTEROPERABILITY
AC/259 AC/107(CAPC)-CIVIL AVIATION PLANNING
COMMITTEE
SGPLE
STANDING GROUP OF
NADREPS AC/259 JCIG
AC/121(CCPC)-CIVIL COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING
COMMITTEE
JALLC
DEF PLAN JOINT ANALYSIS AND PARTNER LOGISTIC NATIONAL ARMAMENTS JOINT CAPABILITY IMPLEMENTATION GROUP
AC/143(IPC)-INDUSTRIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE
EXPERTS AC/271(PBOS)-PLANNING BOARD FOR OCEAN
DEFENCE PLANNING
LESSONS LEARNED CENTRE DIRECTORS REPRESENTATIVES SHIPPING
NURC AC/320(JMC)-JOINT MEDICAL COMMITTEE
JET NATO UNDERSEA
RESEARCH CENTRE
JOINT
EDUCATION&TRAINING AC/259 AGS-CSC AGS-PMOU WB
JWC AGS PROGRAMME
FCR & T JOINT WARFARE CENTRE ALLIANCE GROUND SURVEILLANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FUTURE CAPABILITIES COE’s AC/224 AC/225 AC/141 CAPABILITY STEERING COMMITTEE WORKING BODY
RESEARCH & CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE AC/323
TECHNOLOGIES NAFAG NAAG NNAG AGS3
JFTC RTB
JOINT FORCE TRAINING NATO AIR FORCE NATO ARMY NATO NAVAL ALLIANCE GROUND SURVEILLANCE
JEEA CENTRE RESEARCH AND SUPPORT STAFF Interoperability WB
JOINT ARMAMENTS ARMAMENTS ARMAMENTS
EXPERIMENTATION, TECHNOLOGY BOARD
EXERCISES & ASSESSMENT GROUP GROUP GROUP AC/259 ALTBMD-SC ALTBMD
ALTBMD
P
P P P ACTIVE LAYERED THEATRE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE Programme
Programme
STEERING COMMITTEE Advisory
Advisory ALTBMD PMO
AGENCIES * / RTA Group
Group ACTIVE LAYERED THEATRE
SCHOOLS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE
AGENCY
AC/259 MD PG PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT OFFICE
MISSILE DEFENCE PROJECT GROUP STUDY
STUDY
NAHEMA
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
NATO HELICOPTER
DESIGN&DEVELOPMENT DEPENDENT GROUPS DEPENDENT GROUPS DEPENDENT GROUPS
GROUP
GROUP
PRODUCTION AND LOGISTICS DEPENDENT PANELS
MANAGEMENT AGENCY NIAG
ACG1 Advanced Concepts LCG/1 Dismounted Soldier P STUDY GROUPS
ACG2 Effective Engagement P SG/1 Small Arms Ammunition P
NATO INDUSTRIAL ADVISORY GROUP
NAMEADSMA SAS System, Analysis, Studies MCG/1 Above Water Engagement
ACG3 Survivability LCG/2 Combat Manoeuvre P
SCI System Concepts and Integration SG2 EW Self-Protection Measures for MCG/2 Under Sea Engagement
NATO MEADS LCG/3 Fire Support P
SET Sensors and Electronic Technology Joint Services Airborne Assets SG/21 on Common Standards for Low Frequency
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
IST Information Systems Technology ACG5 Global Mobility P SG/2 Accuracy & Ballistics P Active Sonar and Multi-Static Capability
AC/327 LCMG P
ACG6 Command & Control P LCG/4 Ground Based Air Defence P Ad-Hoc WG Mammal Protection DEPENDENT GROUP
AVT Applied Vehicles Technology MCG/3 Mines, Mine Countermeasures
JISRCG JCG Intelligence, Surveillance LCG/6 Battlefield Surveillance, Target LIFE CYCLE
NETMA HFM Human Factors and Medicine and Harbour Protection P SG/A System Life Cycle Processes
& Reconnaissance P Acquisition, Night Observation, MANAGEMENT GROUP
NATO EF2000 AND TORNADO NMSG NATO Modelling and Simulation ISRIWG ISR Integration Working Group
MCG/4 Maritime Air Delivered Superiority
Camouflage, EW P SG/41 Air-ASW Sonobuoy Standardization
DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION Group
& LOGISTICS AGENCY JCGCBRN CBRN Defence P SG/42 Maritime Air & Tactical Support Systems
CSG Chemical and Biological MCG/5 Effective C2 P
Challenge/Threat to NATO Forces
NHMO MCG/6 Ship Design and Maritime
RNDSG Joint Radiological and Nuclear
Defence Sub Group P Mobility P
NATO HAWK MANAGEMENT OFFICE SG/4 Electric Power Generation, Control,
SIBCRA Sampling & Identification of
Chemical, Biological and
Distribution & Utilization DEPENDENT GROUPS
SG/7 Ship Combat Survivability
BICES PPSG
Radiological Agents P
Joint Physical Protection Sub Group P
SG/61 Virtual Ships
AC/326 CASG P SG/1 Energetic materials
MCG/7 Maritime Environmental
NATO BATTLEFIELD INFORMATION HMSG Joint Hazard Management Sub Group P SG/2 Initiation systems
COLLECTION AND EXPLOITATION DIMSG Joint Detection, Identification and Protection P M AMMUNITION SG/3 Munition systems
AGENCY Monitoring Sub Group P MCG/8 Maritime EW
NDC NATO DEFENCE COLLEGE LCG/7 Battlefield Mobility & Engineer JUAVG JCG Unmanned Aerial Vehicles P SAFETY GROUP SG/4 Transport Logistics
SG/5 Logistic Storage & Disposal
NAPMA Support P
SG/6 Operational Ammunition Safety
LCG/8 Tactical Air Mobility & Support P
NATO AEW&C PROGRAMME
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
NATO SCHOOL (SHAPE) TG3 Non-Lethal Capabilities P
MSIAC
FORACS MUNITIONS SAFETY
CEPMA NCISS NATO COMMUNICATION
CENTRAL EUROPE PIPELINE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS SCHOOL
NATO NAVAL FORCES
SENSOR&WEAPON AC/135 GNDC P INFORMATION ANALYSIS
CENTER
MANAGEMENT AGENCY ACCURACY CHECK SITES
GROUP
LEGEND OF NATIONAL DIRECTORS
T = Transparent to Partners
P
M
= Partially open to Partner participation
= Open to MD Countries
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED ON CODIFICATION
NAMSA
CNAD – CAPABILITY BASED STRUCTURE
AND ITS RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER NATO BODIES
NATO MAINTENANCE &
Drafted by Lt. col. eng. Vasile SERBANESCU (2004)
W = Some activities are open to Partners SUPPLY AGENCY Defence Section / Permanent Delegation of Romania to NATO
DIRECTION AND CONTROL (Workshops/Symposia) Updated by Daniela Baluchova (ARM-JAS)
LIAISON / CO-OPERATION * Including: NAMSA, NSA, NC3A, NACMA, RTA, NCSA
P = Partnership Group September 2007
 NATO Army Armaments Group
AC/225 Army
AC/225 Army Armaments
Armaments Group
Group

LCG/1 LCG/2 LCG/3 LCG/4

LCG/4 JCG
JCG LCG/6
LCG/6
LCG/1 LCG/2 LCG/3
Dismounted Combat Fire Ground
Ground Joint
Joint STANOC &&
STANOC
Dismounted Combat Fire
Soldier Manoeuvre Support Based Air
Based Air CBRN
CBRN Electronic
Electronic
Soldier Manoeuvre Support
Defence
Defence Defence
Defence Warfare
Warfare

• •SG/1
SG/1Ammunition
Ammunition • •SG/2
SG/2
Interoperability Accuracy, &&
Accuracy,
Interoperability Ballistics • •SG
SGSIBCRA
SIBCRA
• •Weapons
Weapons&& Ballistics • SG PhysicalProtection
• SG Physical Protection
Sensors
Sensors • SG Detect/ID/Monitoring
• SG Detect/ID/Monitoring
• •C4I/Architecture
C4I/Architecture
• •SG
SGHazard
HazardMgt
Mgt
• CCIEP
• CCIEP • SG Rad/Nuc Defence
• SCAG • SG Rad/Nuc Defence
• SCAG • SG Challenge
• SG Challenge
• Power
• Power
•Headborne Systems
•Headborne Systems

LCG/7 LCG/8
LCG/8 TG/3
TG/3
LCG/7
Battlefield TacticalAir
Tactical Air Non-Lethal
Non-Lethal
Battlefield
Mobility && Mobility &&
Mobility Systems
Systems
Mobility
Support
Support Support
Support

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 Capability
Culture

Ar
ge

ma
an

me
ch

nts
nEx

Co
tio

op
ma

MANAGEMENT

e
or

ra
LIAISON
Inf

tion
ADMINISTRATION

Non Lethal Network

Capabilities Enabled
Interoperability Capabilities
Standardization

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
Mission - Main Armament Groups
• NATO Armament Handbook – 27 Jul 2006
– Foster exchange of Information
– Promote technical Standardization
– Identify and promote Technical advancements
– Plan/direct/coord subordinate groups
– Liaise with all relevant organizations
• Within NATO – RTO, IMS, NIAG, ACT, NSA,etc
• Outside as Auth – EU, NGOs, Industry, etc

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 LCG/1 and Sub-groups

LCG/1
On Dismounted
Soldier

C4I & Systems

SG/1 Architecture
On Ammunition Working Group
Interchangeabilty

Combat Clothing
Individual Equipment Soldier Capability Weapons & Sensors
& Protection Analysis Group Working Group
Working Group

Two Team of Experts - Power and Head-borne Systems

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 NATO Soldier System History
¾ Working Group of Experts in Panel 3
¾ 1991-1993

¾ NIAG Pre-Feasibility Study Dismounted Soldier

Modernization – Scanned onto Web Site
¾ 1992-1994

¾ WG 3 of Panel 3 Soldier Modernization

¾ 1994- Oct 2000

¾ Topical Group 1 Soldier System Interoperability

¾ Oct 2000 – Dec 2005

¾ Land Group 1 Soldier Systems

¾ Jan 2006

¾ Land Capability Group 1 Dismounted Soldier

¾ Jan 2007
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
Land Capability Group 1 Management
¾ Chairman
¾ LCol Mike Bodner – CAN

¾ Deputy Chairman
¾ LCol Wolfgang Althoff - DEU

¾ NATO International Staff Support

¾ Matt Dove – Land Armaments Unit, NATO HQ

¾ Land Capability Group 1 - Many Delegations

¾ NATO Countries - 21
¾ Partners - 6
¾ Contact Country – 1 (Australia)

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
LCG/1 Sub – Group/Working Group Structure
¾ Sub-Group/1 Ammunition Interchangeability
¾ Col Dirk Hemerlick – BEL Chairman
¾ Iain Morris – GBR Superintendent ERTC
¾ Dominic Pellegrino – USA Superintendent NRTC
¾ Soldier Capabilities & Analysis Group
¾ Mr Mark Richter – USA Chairman
¾ Maj Torstein Johnson – NOR Deputy
¾ Combat Clothing Individual Equipment & Protection WG
¾ Mr Henk Reulink – NLD Chairman
¾ Maj Dan Fitzgerald – USA Deputy
¾ C4I & Systems Architecture WG
¾ Mr JD Wilson – USA Chairman
¾ Mr Marcel VanderLee – NLD Deputy
¾ Weapons & Sensors WG
¾ Per Arvidson – SWE Chairman
¾ Deputy Chairman – Vacant
¾ Power TOE
¾ Chairman - Vacant
¾ Maj Paul Soulliere – CAN Deputy
¾ Headborne Systems TOE
¾ Chairman -Vacant NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 Specific Work of LCG 1

Sub Group 1 Ammunition Interchangeability

Qualify NATO Ammunition designs
¾ Certify NATO Interchangeability
¾ Operate NATO Regional Test Centers
¾ Certify National Test Centers
¾ This year
9 Qualified 4 new 5.56mm ammunition designs
9 Qualified 4 new 7.62mm ammunition designs
9 Conducted production tests on 14 approved designs
9 Revised the list of NATO nominated weapons
9 Completed a draft STANAG and MOPI for 30mm
9 Two national test centers certified for selected calibers

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 Specific Work of LCG 1
Soldier Capability and Analysis Group

¾ Serve as oversight and provide operational direction to

LCG/1
¾ Develop Operational Scenarios of Coalition
interoperability at the Dismounted individual Level
¾ Provide rationale for work
¾ USA has assumed Chair
¾ Completed 3 Dismounted Coalition Scenarios
Approved by ACT Feb 2007
¾ Completed an Overarching Definition and Capabilities
document
Approved March 2007

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 Specific Work of LCG 1

Combat Clothing Individual Equipment and

Protection Working Group

¾ Group is addressing LTCR MF/12/6 Integrated

Personal Protection (one of the CNAD top 16)
¾ Ballistic Test Methods for Personal Armour
Materials
Approved March 2007
¾ Updating Laser eye Protection
¾ Tracking Smart Textiles

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 Specific Work of LCG 1
C4I / Systems Architecture Working Group
¾ Develop the ability to exchange tactical map information
and individual soldier positional information at the soldier
level – NAAG Chairman MGen Dam, NLD
¾ “Electrical Connectivity Standards for Dismounted Soldier
Systems”
Approved March 2007
¾ “Information exchange data definitions & inter-process
communications protocols between dismounted soldier battlefield
management systems”
Currently out for approval
¾ “Connectivity Standards for soldier battle management systems”
Currently out for approval

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 Specific Work of LCG 1
Weapons & Sensors Working Group
¾ Review STANAGs and Nations SA plans
¾ RTO Study initiated to address issues associated with:
9 Weapons interfaces
9 Human Factors & analysis
9 Electrical Power
¾ Firing trial conducted at a USMC Base
¾ Deliver a Technical Report by Dec 2008
¾ Effort will form basis for future work

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
 Summary to Industry

• NATO / NAAG has restructured to a

capability-based focus to better align with
the Allied Command Transformation (ACT).
• LGC/1 is a large group with significant
responsibilities
• All dismounted soldier standardization falls
under NAAG - most in LCG 1

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED
Advancements in 40mm Ammunition
Low Velocity High Velocity

22 May 2008

Session Overview—Introduction
Dave Broden
Broden Resource Solutions LLC
NDIA
Small Arms Symposium 2008

1
 Objectives

• Establish Rigorous Engineering Based Design and Performance

Rationale for 40mm Grenade Ammunition
– Low Velocity Family
– High Velocity Family
– Product Improvements
– Weapon Interfaces

• Evolve Improved Documentation for:

– Technical Data Packages
– Specifications
– Performance Characteristics
• Interior, Exterior, Terminal Ballistics
• Reliability
• Safety

• Support Performance, On-Going, Production, and Operational Failure

Analysis

2
 40mm Ammunition
Government Technology Insertion Team
• Melissa Wanner PM-MAS Project Management Engineer

• James Grassi ARDEC 40mm Special Projects Lead

• Adam Sorchini ARDEC Project Engineer

• Adam Jacob ARDEC Project Engineer

• Jason Wasserman ARDEC Project Engineer

• Peter Martin ARDEC Project Engineer

• Christopher Summa ARDEC Project Engineer

• Matthew Millar ARDEC Project Engineer

3
 40mm Ammunition
Technology Insertion Participants
• US Army PM—MAS

• USAIC
Integrated Product Team (IPT)
Linking
• US Army JMC
Technology, Development, Production
To Realize
• ARDEC
40mm Ammunition Improvements
• PEO Soldier Weapons

• ARL

• ATC

• 40mm Ammunition System Management Contractors

– AMTEC Corporation
– DSE

• Various Supporting Subcontractors 4

 40mm Technology
Advancement
Highlights
• Focused on Rigorous Engineering
– Analysis
– Design/Development
– Test
– Producibility

• Establishing 40mm Ammunition Baseline Characteristics

– Performance Characteristics
– Identifying and Addressing Concerns
– Supporting On Going Production

• Implementing Product Improvement Priorities

– Performance (Ballistic, Reliability, Quality, Safety etc.)
– Producibility
– Affordability 5
 40mm Technology
Advancement Status
Presentations
• Producibility Improvements of 40m High and Low Velocity
Shaped Charge Liners
– Mr. Adam Sorchini

• Center of Mass Changes During Arming of 40mm Fuzes

– Mr. Adam Jacob

• Electronics and Sensors in 40mm Low Velocity Grenade

Ammunition
– Mr. Jason Wasserman

6
 40mm Technology
Advancement Status
Presentations
• 40mm Day/Night Practice Cartridge for Mk13/XM320/M203
Grenade Launchers
– Mr. Peter Martin

• M385A1 Composite Projectile Feasibility Study

– Mr. Christopher Summa

• Development of M16A2 Pivoting Coupling

– Mr. Matthew Millar

7
 40mm Technology
Advancement
Benefits
• Rigorous In-Depth Engineer Rationale and Design/Performance
Data Base Evolving for all 40mm Ammunition
– Baseline Design/Performance Evolving

• Attention to Implementing Priority Product Improvements

– Development (New Technology, Components, Cartridges)
– Addressing Producibility Topics
– Technology Insertion

• Linking the 40mm Government and Contractor Community

– Effective IPT Teams

Supporting the Warfighter Objectives

40mm Ammunition
Capability, Quality, Reliability, Availability, and Affordability
Today and the Future 8
LtCol George M. Chinn Award

MK 12
Mr. Troy Smith MK 11

MK 18 MK 23

2008 NDIA LtCol

MK 46 George M. Chinn MK 48

Award Recipient
MK 16 MK 17

1 MK 13
LtCol George M. Chinn Award
PM PM PM

IN PE
IN

PM PM

IN

Troy Smith’s Involvement

PM: Program Manager, PE: Project
Engineer, IN: Instrumental

Also
● M4A1 ● MK262 ● SOPMOD ● SOF Weapons PM ● Enhanced “O” Level Maintenance + VAS
2 ● Enhanced SOF ammo (5.56x45mm, 7.62x51mm, 40x46mm MV, .300 Win Mag) ● Future Sniper Rifle System
 Troy Smith
LtCol George M. Chinn Award Awards and Recognition

MK 12 MK 11
● 2001 USSOCOM “FCT Program of the Year” Award

● 2001 “David Packard” Award

MK 18 MK 23

● 2003 US Navy Meritorious Civilian Award

● 2004 NDIA OSD Govt “Tester of the Year” Award

MK 46 MK 48
● 2007 CTO Program “Manager of the Year” Award

MK 16 MK 17

3 MK 13
LtCol George M. Chinn Award

MK 12
Mr. Troy Smith MK 11

2008 Chinn Award Recipient

MK 18 MK 23

MK 46 SUPPORTING THE NEEDS OF MK 48

THE WAR FIGHTER TODAY

MK 16 MK 17

4 MK 13
 Product Manager Individual Weapons
Overview
For the
Small Arms Symposium & Exhibition
National Defense Industrial Association

BG R. Mark Brown 19-22 May 2008 LTC Tim Chyma

Program Executive Officer Soldier PM Individual Weapons
Individual Weapons
 2

XM25 Individual
Airburst Weapon System
DESCRIPTION
A semi-automatic rifle with an integrated
target acquisition fire control that fires
25mm air bursting munitions.
ACQ STRAT: Developmental

QTY: TBD

PHASE: Technology Development

CONTRACTOR: Alliant Techsystems, Plymouth, MN;

L3 Communications (Brashears), Pittsburgh, PA; H&K,
Oberndorf, GM

CAPABILITIES FUTURE KEY EVENTS

ƒ Defeats defilade targets ƒ Contractor/Government testing
ƒ Family of 25mm ammunition
(includes HEAB, TP, AP, non-lethal) ƒ Early User Assessment
ƒ 500 meter point targets
ƒ 500-700 meters area targets ƒ MS B
ƒ Fully integrated target acquisition/fire
control
(2x Thermal, 2x DVO, LRF, compass, fuze
setter, ballistic processor, and internal display)
 4

XM26 Modular Accessory

Shotgun System (MASS)
DESCRIPTION
A lightweight accessory shotgun system
that attaches under the barrel of the M4
and M16 Modular Weapon Systems.

ACQ STRAT: COTS/NDI

QTY: Tentatively 26,789

PHASE: Low Rate Initial Production

CONTRACTOR: Vertu Corp

CAPABILITIES FUTURE KEY EVENTS

• Fires Lethal, Non-lethal and Door ƒ Complete DT/OT Testing
Breaching 12 Ga. Rounds
ƒ Production Decision
• Can be zeroed to the sighting system
of the host weapon
ƒ Fielding
• Lethality equivalent of a stand-alone
12 Ga. Shotgun

• Can be fired as a stand-alone weapon

 14

XM320 Grenade Launcher Module

(GLM)
DESCRIPTION
A 40mm grenade-launching weapon
module that will replace M203 series
grenade launchers currently mounted on
the M16/M4 series of rifles and carbines.

ACQ STRAT: COTS/NDI

QTY: Tentatively 71,600

PHASE: Low Rate Initial Production

CONTRACTOR: Heckler & Koch Defense Inc.

CAPABILITIES FUTURE KEY EVENTS
• Integral Day/Night sighting system
ƒ Production Decision
improves target acquisition and
accuracy
ƒ Fielding
• Improved Reliability and Safety

• Can be fired as a stand-alone weapon

• Unrestricted breach allows a wider

array of munitions
 16

M150 Rifle Combat Optic

(RCO)

DESCRIPTION
A magnified optic that attaches to M4s,
M16s and M249s to improve the ability to
recognize and engage targets out to 600m.

ACQ STRAT: COTS/NDI

QTY: Tentatively 135,091

PHASE: Production and Deployment

CONTRACTOR: Trijicon

FUTURE KEY EVENTS

CAPABILITIES
• Improved capability to recognize and • Material Release
engage targets 0-600m.
• Continue Fielding
• Allow Soldier to rapidly transition
between close quarter and long-range
engagements.
 16

M68 Close Combat Optic

(CCO)

DESCRIPTION
A unity powered red dot sight that
attaches to M4s and M16s for close
quarter engagements.

ACQ STRAT: COTS/NDI

QTY: 565,000

PHASE: Production (Recompete)

CONTRACTOR: TBD

FUTURE KEY EVENTS

CAPABILITIES
• Allows the Soldier to engage targets • Contract Award
with both eyes open while maintaining
situational awareness • DT/OT Testing

• Eliminates the difficulty associated with • Full Rate Production Decision

aligning irons sights.
 Upcoming Competitive
Opportunities

ƒ Modular Handgun System

– COTS/NDI approach
– Performance based competition
– Anticipate Fall ‘08

ƒ Carbine
– Compete the M4 design Tech Data Package
– Anticipate multiple contract awards for end item and parts
– Anticipate Summer ‘09

ƒ Special Compact
– COTS/NDI approach
– Performance based competition
– TBD pending approval of requirement and funding

Monitor procnet at http://procnet.pica.army.mil

 Entry Points
For Innovative Ideas
ƒ Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP)
– Identify and evaluate COTS/NDI items that are used by the
individual Soldier in a tactical environment and can be adopted
and provided to Soldiers in three years or less.

– Anyone can submit a SEP proposal

– The proposal must meet SEP criteria

– Visit https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/sep.asp

ƒ Unsolicited Proposal (UP)

– A new idea, suggestion or inventive concept that is offered
outside formally advertised requests

– The Army has a continuing interest in receiving and evaluating

UPs

– Unsolicited proposals must meet UP criteria

– Visit https://www.pica.army.mil/techtran/howtodo/default.htm

– Or call the technical and Industrial liaison Officer at 973-724-

6750
 2008 International Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms
Systems Symposium & Expo

Small Caliber Ammunition Industrial Base

Past-Present-Future

21 May 2008

Dave Council
Director, Military Program Management
Olin Corporation, Winchester Division
dwcouncil@olin.com
(618) 258-3511
 Agenda

• Winchester Overview

• The Past (2000 to 2003)

Before OEF & OIF

• The Ramp-Up (2004 to 2006)

Urgent Buys and Second Source Start-Ups

• The Present
(Almost) All Systems Go

• The Future
Flexibility Required
 Winchester Overview
• Winchester is in its 142nd year of operation and its 78th year as part of Olin Corporation.
• Winchester is a premier developer and manufacturer of small caliber ammunition for sale to domestic and
international retailers, law enforcement agencies, and domestic and international militaries.
• Winchester is committed to conservation, the shooting sports, our nation’s hunting heritage, and support of
the American Warfighter.

Core Businesses
Winchester Ammunition

Military Law Enforcement Industrial Commercial

Primary Ammunition Products: Primary Ammunition Products: Primary Ammunition Products: Primary Ammunition Products:
Centerfire rifle, centerfire pistol, and and buckshot for Centerfire pistol, centerfire rifle, slugs & buckshot for 8 Gauge and rimfire PAT for industrial plants and the Shotshells, centerfire rifle, centerfire pistol, and rimfire
US and foreign military operations federal, state, and municipal law enforcement agencies construction industry For hunters and recreational target shooters

Operations
Winchester Plant Site Products Produced
East Alton, Illinois Shotshells
Small caliber centerfire rifle & pistol cartridges
Industrial products: 8 gauge shotshells
Oxford, Mississippi Rimfire ammunition
Powder-actuated tool (PAT) loads

Geelong, Australia Shotshells

Small caliber centerfire rifle & pistol cartridges
Rimfire ammunition
Powder-actuated tool (PAT) loads
 The Past: 2000 to 2003

• Base Military Business at East Alton, IL Facility

– Well Established; Long History of US Government Supply

– Prime Contracts for Pistol, Shotshell, Rimfire, Specialty
Loads
– Manufacturing Capacity Shared to Meet Demands of All
Markets

• Market Conditions for Military Small Cal Ammo Were Down

– Just Past the Low Point of ’90s Drawdown

– Weakened Second Tier Sub-contractor Base
– Room to Grow
 The Ramp Up (2004 to 2006)
• “Urgent Buy” Contracts Awarded 2003 & 2004

– Prime Contracts for “Lake City” Line Items (5.56mm, 7.62mm and .50 Cal)
– Full US TDP Compliance, with Minimum Tolerance for Exceptions
– Demanding Start-up and Delivery Schedules
– Utilized Manufacturing Capacity Available from Total Plant Pool

• “Second Source” Contract Awarded to GD-OTS in 2005

– Winchester Sub-contractor on GD-OTS Team

– Continuation and Addition of Products
– Essentially Zero Tolerance for Exceptions to US TDP

• Lessons & Adjustments

– Demands of Multiple New Product Start-ups (Equipment Set-up; Process

Development; Employee Training; Supply Base Development; FATs; etc.)
– New Quality Requirements (MIL STD 1916; Critical Defect Clauses; ISO
9001:2000; etc.)
– New Customer Dynamic (PEO; PM-MAS; Critical Need)
 The Present

• Winchester is in its Fifth Year of Elevated Production

– Start-ups Complete
– Workforce Trained – Ongoing
– “Government Business” Culture Established –
Ongoing
– Supply Base Established & Stabilized
– Readiness at Peak Level
 The Future

• Variables & Uncertainty – Politics & Budgets

• Potential Cost Impact of Commodities Must be Mitigated (Current ICAP Project

with EPA Clauses)

• Readiness Achieved From Five Years of Investments In Human Capital,

Equipment and Processes Should be Maintained

• Requirements (and Funding) Should be Established to Maintain Minimum

Sustaining Production Rates

• If/When Drawdown Occurs:

– Business Will Follow the Dollars

– Winchester Capacity Will Redirect to Other Market Demands
– Readiness Will Suffer
– Start-up Costs will be Incurred Again During Next Ramp-up
– Effects Amplified in A “Hard Landing” Scenario
 Joint Service Small Arms Applied
Research Activities and Approach

2008 National Defense Industrial Association’s International

Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium

Joint Service Small Arms Program Office

John Edwards
Program Management Officer
 Outline

Approach - Joint Service Small Arms

Applied Research efforts

 Warfighter focus

All photographs are from the DOD link photos page

 Joint Service Small Arms Program

• Harmonizes/Coordinates Across Armed Services

JSSAP Mission
• Consolidated Small Arms Science & Technology
JSSAP Mission
– Operational Based
– PM Technology List (total ownership cost)
• Joint Small Arms Master Plan Updated every 2 years
JSSAP SOP

Joint Service Small Arms Synchronization Team

is the reviewing and approving authority
 JSSAP Tech Plan
Approach and Coordination
1. Capability Assessments and Needs reviewed
• Service Combat Developers
• Joint collaboration and/or assessment

2. NSAC/NSATC subcommittees review of white papers

• JSSAP Application Working Group as subcommittee

3. Coordination with OGAs either directly or through NSAC subcommittees.

• Coordinate with other Lethality Technology Investments, ATOs.

4. Joint Service Small Arms Synchronization Team approval

5. Additional Reviews; RDEC Lethality IPT, RDECOM, ONR, ASAALT

 Small Arms Tech Planning

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Lightweight Small Arms Technology

Caliber Study

Technology for Small

Arms Capabilities

• Lethality (ex. Miniature prox fuze components; Frag improvements)

• Advanced materials & recoil technologies
• Fire Control Tactile Range determination component
• Powered rail technologies & Wireless weapons interface

Small Arms New Concepts

& Technology Capabilities
 JSSAP Tech Plan Implementation

Top Down Capability Need Identification Process

National DOD
Security Strategic
Strategy Guidance
Figure A-1
Guidance CJCSI 3170.01E

Family of
CONOPS Joint Future
Concepts

Small Arms Capability

Capability Based
Based Assessment most
Assessment recent JCIDs small arms
(FAA, FNA, FSA,

Assessment
PIA) update.
and

9 Enhancing the
Analysis

Reconciliation
JCIDS
&
Recommendations
Recommendations
Capability Needs
DOTMLPF Changes
warfighters overmatch
capability
Planning,
DCR Programming,
Implementation Science & Budgeting and Acquisition
Technology Execution
Experimentation

JSSAP
 Advanced Lethal Armament Technology Small Arms

Army Technology Objective R.ARD.2008.03

Purpose:
– To demonstrate advanced lethal
armament component technology
– Terminal fragmentation effectiveness
trades
Schedule & Cost –Miniaturize Proximity electronics power
Milestones FY08 FY09 FY10 – Lowest weight Recoil attenuation
Advanced Lethality Component – Modeling and Simulation assessments
•Concept small warheads with modeling. 2
• Experiment geometric & directionality warheads Payoff:
• Breadboard lethal & frag concepts comp. Procurement • Provides improved munition effectiveness
Action Pending 4 to targets
• Miniature Proximity fuze electronics
3 • Multiple critical technology
• Demo critical electronic comp. demonstrations
4
•Develop adv. recoil concepts • Enabling maturity measurement
2
• Tradeoff materials and recoil absorption
• Systems level analysis
technology. Experiment with recoil absorption
3
•Critical breadboard of weapon launch Supporting fulfilling broad small arms
survivability 4 capability gaps for spiral transition.
 Advanced Fire Control Technology for Small Arms

Army Technology Objective R.ARD.2008.054

Target Tracker & Laser steering Purpose:
– To demonstrate advanced fire
control component technology
– Determining correct range to
Schedule & Cost moving targets
Milestones FY08 FY09 FY10
– Further power sharing within
Laser Steering / Adv. Range Finding
2 weapon
• Concept Studies

• Component Experimentation Payoff:

• Critical technology
• Component analysis/define parameters demonstrations
3 • Technology maturity TRL path
• Critical breadboard proof of concepts
• Integration Systems Analysis
• Selection for breadboard fabrications
Procurement
• Available for spiral transition
Action Pending
• Integration of breadboard components
4
Supporting fulfilling broad small
• Component banding/maturation arms capability gaps defilade and
covered targets
 Modeling and Simulation Role in JSSAP ATO’s

ROOM
1
CLEARING

IMPROVED
LETHALITY

BREACHED DOOR

IMPROVED
BREACH TARGET IDENTIFICATION

GAP M
O
PMJ “GAPS” Thres Es
hold Multi Gaps
Assessmen Gaps Sensi
t tivity MOEs

rd
Tech breadboa

Tech C omponent Affordability

etrics
Technology Metrics Update M ce
& Performan
Studies
g Tech Adv Lethal Armaments Tech f Small Arms
Promisin
Adv Fire Control Tech f Small Arms
 Outcomes of Applied Tech
Programs

Technology Component Investments

• Warfighter Capability focus
• Critical Technology Demonstrations
• System Analysis Effectiveness

Modeling and Simulation activities

¾ Link to Capabilities

Procurement ¾ Integration to
Actions Pending weapons systems
¾Underpinning
analysis documented
 Summary

Approach - Joint Service Small Arms

Warfighter Capability Focus

Applied Research efforts

Modeling and Simulation links
Capabilities to technologies
Suppressing Sacred Cows
Graham Evenden
Director – Business Development
System Design Evaluation Ltd
Oak Park
Hunsdon, Ware
Hertfordshire
SG12 8QP
Tel: +44(0)1279 842203
Direct Dial: +44 1373 827023
E‐mail: Graham@SystemDesignEvaluation.co.uk
www.SystemDesignEvaluation.co.uk

1
• Introduction.
• Targetry – From data through
information to knowledge!
• Trial Results – A platform for
improving shooting training?
• Reconciling Training Expectations
& Trial Results.
2
3
 Live Fire Intelligent
Target

6
7
• Accurate detection of high velocity
projectiles.
• Detection window 30m x 30m(Calibre
and Sensitivity Setting Dependent).
• Detection (HV) up to 45O from either
side of target centre.
• Radio Controlled (3 ‐4 km) & GPS for
UTC.
• PC at every target for instant decision
making and subsequent target behaviour.
• Allows sufficient scope for most
realistic trial scenarios and LFTT. 8
9
 The ‘intelligent’ targets capture the time and position (in
3D‐space) of all shots that pass within close proximity to
the target. The software processes this information to
determine whether that specific shot would have resulted
in a
kill,
incapacitation
or suppressive effect

The LFIT simulate the response of a potential enemy to the

effectiveness of the incoming fire from the exercising
troops and the targets respond ‘intelligently’ to the
incoming fire, in an autonomous manner

10
 Software

11
14
15
• Time to engage enemy;
• Time to achieve initial suppression;
• Duration of suppressive period provided by ammunition
load;
• Proportion of shots that are deemed to have some effect
upon the enemy;
• Proportion of task duration for which the enemy was
suppressed;
• Time to kill the enemy;
• Rounds to kill the enemy.

16
 Lethality Trial Results
and
Operational Shooting
Requirement
(OSR)

17
 The Infantry soldier must be able to
react quickly and to fire accurately
to kill or suppress an enemy to the
limits of the battle range of his
personal weapon, or at close
quarters, from different static
positions, on the move and from
cover.
Reference: UK AOSP Chapter 1
 Four‐man teams
must be able to
kill or suppress an
enemy in defence
and in offensive
operations at
battle ranges to
600 metres.
Reference: UK AOSP Chapter 1
 Grouping Application Annual Individual Team Live
& Zeroing of Fire Weapon Live Firing Firing
Test Tactical Tactical
Training Training
(OMS)

Deliver OSR
on
Operations

20
• The Operational Marksmanship Standards
(OMS) are Measures Of Performance.
• The Measured Performance is to achieve:

(h) % hits
at (r) range
on (t) target
21
 Grouping Application Annual Individual Team Live
& Zeroing of Fire Weapon Live Firing Firing
Test Tactical Tactical
Training Training
OMS=MOP

Delivery
of Effect

Robust Link?

Achieve OMS = Deliver OSR

22
 Potential Impact of Changes in Training Regime

Training Regime 1

100%
90%
80%
70%
% Effective Shots

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7

23
 Potential Impact of Changes in Training Regime

Training Regime 2 Training Regime 1

100%
90%
80%

70%
% Effective Shots

60% Insert BF3b and March

50%
Delta Slide
40%

30%
20%
10%
0%
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7

24
25
26
27
•
FIT allows the effectiveness of live fire tactical
training to be measured.
•
FIT allows weaknesses in the delivery of lethal
effect to be identified and improved.
•
FIT assists with improved capability on the
battlefield.
28
•
emonstration to School of Infantry Mar 08.
•
n negotiation with School of Infantry to
provide LFIT service to all recruit and
command courses up to platoon leader.
•
tarting discussions with RAF Regiment.
•
iscussions with HQ Land Command to support
29

Pre Deployment Training (PDT).

Suppressing Sacred Cows
Graham Evenden
Director – Business Development
System Design Evaluation Ltd
Oak Park
Hunsdon, Ware
Hertfordshire
SG12 8QP
Tel: +44(0)1279 842203
Direct Dial: +44 1373 827023
E‐mail: Graham@SystemDesignEvaluation.co.uk
www.SystemDesignEvaluation.co.uk

30
 Knight’s Armament Company
When your life is on the line
…only the finest will do.

Advanced Thermal Management

of Automatic Rifles

George Kontis Laurie A. Florio, Ph.D.

Knight’s Armament Company US ARMY ARDEC
 Previous Contract

Thermal Management for Automatic Firearms:

2007 Objectives
‰Create a 2-D model to predict thermal
characteristics of automatic weapon.
‰Solve the cook-off problem in USMC IAR project

Htie 6 Htie 7
Htie 5

Htie 4 Htie 2
Htie 1
Htie 3
 Current Contract

Tasks for Advanced Thermal Analysis:

‰ Create a 3D model for improved accuracy and better
connection to actual hardware
‰ Reduce the reliance on experimental data
¾ Simulate the bore heat transfer during firing
¾ Simulate the flow cooling the exterior of the weapon
‰ Determine the method for general use of these
techniques
‰ Consider user needs:
¾ How to apply advanced thermal management to improve both
weapon function and usability.
 Analysis Requirements

‰ Solid Model Geometry

‰ Boundary Conditions
¾ Firing Schedule
¾ Internal (Barrel Bore)
¾ External
‰ Adequate Computing Resources
¾ CFD model run time is measured in weeks
¾ Thermal model run time is measured in days
 Solid Model to Analysis Model

‰ Solid model is meshed

¾ Thousands of volumes used to solve the problem
 Firing Schedule

‰ Firing schedule needs to be defined

¾ Any firing rate can be specified
¾ Any number of bullets
¾ Any number of magazines

Test data vs Analytical--model by individual round

 Bore Heat Transfer Simulation:

US. Army ARDEC CFD model:

‰Simulate the bulk effects of combustion
‰Transient solution captures the motion of bullet

‰Cooling period after bullet firing is simulated

‰Gas temperatures and heat transfer coefficients are input

into the heat transfer model
2800 400.0E+3
t=0.05ms
t=0.10ms
350.0E+3 t=0.20ms
2300 t=0.30ms

Heat Transfer Coefficient (W/m2K)

300.0E+3 t=0.40ms
t=0.50ms
t=0.05ms t=0.60ms
Temperature(K)

1800 250.0E+3 t=0.70ms

Gas t=0.10ms
t=0.20ms t=0.80ms
t=0.30ms h 200.0E+3
temp. 1300
t=0.40ms
t=0.50ms 150.0E+3
t=0.60ms
t=0.70ms
100.0E+3
800 t=0.80ms

50.0E+3

300 000.0E+0
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
axial position (x)
axial position (x)
 ARDEC Bore CFD Model

‰ Model used to calculate heat input to barrel

To bullet exit

To 4ms

oF

To 59ms
Temperature contour animations of firing one round
 Boundary Condition Validation

‰ ARDEC CFD gas flow model used to estimate the flow

rate, temperature, pressure of flow in gas tube to
estimate heat transfer to gas tube

Gas flow velocity contour animation

m/s
 Boundary Condition Validation

‰ ARDEC Muzzle CFD model used to determine extent of

effect of escaping gun gases on the external flow

High Speed Video Velocity Contour Plot Animation

 External Flow CFD Simulation
‰ Based on ARDEC Muzzle CFD model, muzzle blast
can be ignored
External Flow CFD Simulation
 Current Thermal Model Results

‰ Model agrees with test data extremely well

Current Thermal Model Results

‰ Study completion in July 2008

¾ 3D modeling

¾ Methodology

SINGLE ROUND ANIMATION

 Contact Information

‰ George Kontis
Knight’s Armament Company
321-607-9900
gkontis@knightarmco.com

‰ Laurie A. Florio, Ph.D.

US Army ARDEC
973-724-5993
laurie.florio@us.army.mil
 Joint Service Small Arms Synchronization Team
(JSSAST)
Update

for
Joint Services Small Arms Systems Section
Annual Symposium, Exhibition and Firing Demonstration

20 May 2008

Presented
By

COL Scott Flynn

JSSAST Chairman
 JSSAST Update

Agenda

¿ JSSAST Mission
¿ JSSAST Membership
¿ Overarching Themes and Status
¿ Current Programs and Future Plans
¿ What’s Next?

Members
 Joint Service Small Arms Program Office
(JSSAP)

¿ Who
Î Joint Service Office Located Within US Army ARDEC

¿ Mission
Î Establish Joint Requirements
Î Evolve Technology for New Soldier Weapon Systems
Î Manage and Execute the Technology Base

Members
 Joint Service Small Arms Synchronization Team
(JSSAST)

Meets
Semiannually
Chairman
COL Scott Flynn (Director, ESIC)

Principals:
Army: COL Robert Radcliffe (USAIC)
Marines: LtCol Tracy Tafolla (HQ MCSC)
Air Force: Col Charles Beck (HQ AFSFC)
Navy: CAPT Patrick Sullivan (HQ NAVSEA)
Coast Guard: CAPT Scott Genovese (HQ USCG)
SOCOM: COL Kevin Noonan (HQ SOCOM)

Associates:
Army PMSW: COL Carl Lipsit (PM Soldier Weapons)
JNLWD: Mr. Kevin Swenson (JNLWD)
 JSSAST Themes

FY08-10

JSSAP Awareness Campaign:

9-Continue meeting with Service Members and HQ’s
- Extend to the Office of the Secretary of Defense

Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan (JSSAMP)

9 - Complete Departmental approvals of current document
- Update JSSAMP in FY09/Approve in FY10

Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

9- Establishment of a Joint Requirement
- Build a jointly funded program for the SDD and Production Phases of Acquisition

Joint Small Arms Capabilities Assessment (JSACA)

- Update current document in FY09
- Harmonize the results of the various on-going Service capabilities assessments
 Awareness Campaign Status

Completed

¿ US SOCOM PEO SOF Warrior

¿ USMC PM Infantry Weapons
¿ USCG Deputy Assistant Commandant for Capabilities
¿ USN PEO Littoral and Maritime Warfare
¿ JNLWD Acquisition Division Chief

Planned

¿ USAIC Director Combat Developments

¿ US Army TRADOC
¿ All Service Higher HQ Elements
¿ Office of the Secretary of Defense
 JSSAMP Status

Revise/Approve
FY09-10

November 2008
4 April 2003

JSSAMP Approved by All Service HQ Elements

 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Current Technology Objectives:
¿ 35% Reduction in Weapon Weight
¿ 40% Reduction in Ammunition Weight
Many GO
¿ Maintain or Improve Performance
¿ Demonstrate in Light Machine Gun Live Fire Demos
Conducted
Payoff:
¿ Increased Mobility and Maneuverability
¿ Decreased Logistics Burden
¿ Reduced Training and Maintenance

Transition and Fielding:

¿ Transition Strategy Planning Initiated Lightweight Machine Gun
¿ Joint Capabilities Tech Demo Being Explored Concept
Risk Level:
M249 Goal Caseless/CTA
¿ Medium
Weapon 17.5 lb 11.4 lb 9.9/9.8 lb
Ammo (600 Rds) 20.4 lb 12.2 lb 10.0/13.6 lb
System (Wpn +Ammo) 37.9 lb 23.6 lb 19.9/23.4 lb
JSSAP Technology Objectives

Advanced Fire Control Technology

Advanced Lethal Armament Technology

Both Efforts Initiated in FY 08

 Long Term Technology Strategy

Futures Conferences
Futures I
Who: Principally Science Fiction Writers
When: 11-12 March 2008
What: Broad-based Concepts Identified and Assessed

Futures II
Who: SME’s from Military, Industry, Academia, Government and National Labs
When: 30 April-1 May 2008
What: Technologies Mapped to Concepts and Assessed
Concepts Assessed wrt Empowerment of Small Arms Platforms
- Lethality/Incapacitation
- Network Integration
- Overall Integration
 JSSAST Update

What’s Next?

¿ Continue Operational Awareness Campaign

¿ Develop Transition Strategy for LSAT Technologies
¿ Execute Fire Control and Lethality Technology Thrusts
¿ Initiate JSACA Update
¿ Develop Long Term Technology Strategy
 Assistant Commandant for Capabilities

Joint Service Small Arms Systems

Annual Symposium
20 May 2008
CAPT S. D. Genovese
Commandant (CG-7D)
Coast Guard Headquarters
1
 Overview

• Handgun Replacement Project

• Near Term Re-Cap Goals
• Near Term Projects
• Top Map

2
 Handgun Replacement Project

• SIGARMS P229R-DAK is
Replacing the M9 Beretta.
ƒ Approximately 85% of the Coast Guard
has transitioned.

• Type classification – NSWC

Crane Division.
ƒ .40 caliber (frangible, JHP, & Ball).
ƒ Frangible contract being reworked.
ƒ 5 year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite
Quantity (IDIQ) contract with
FEDERAL for JHP & Ball (both 155
grain).
ƒ Hazard Class assigned (1.4S).
ƒ Final NALC/NIIN assigned.
ƒ WSESRB Pends.
3
 Near Term Re-cap Goals
Over the next two years the Coast Guard is going to
finish re-capitalization of its handgun, machine gun,
and disabling fire weapon inventories. This effort will
include the replacement of the:
• M9 pistol with the SIGARMS P229R-DAK pistol.
• M60 machine gun with the M240B/H.
• Robar RC-50 .50 caliber rifle with the M107.

4
 Near Term Projects

• The Coast Guard will continue to refine policy and the

supporting Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for two
(02) new weapons initiatives in the inventory:
ƒ MK11 rifle. The MK11 will be used for precision engagement.
ƒ M14T rifle. The M14T will be used in support of Airborne Use
of Force.
• Currently, there are no near term plans to change the
standard service rifle/carbine (M16, M4, MK18), the
service shotgun (M870P), or the venerable M2HB
machine gun.

5
 CG Small Arms Top Map

Existing Systems Emerging Systems Objective Systems

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

M9
M9 Pistol
Pistol SIG P229R-DAK

Future
M16A2
M16A2 Individual
Modular
M
M 44 Weapon

M 14 Tactical

Future
Mk11/EBR
Mk11/EBR Precision
Weapon

6
 CG Small Arms Top Map
Existing Systems Emerging Systems Objective Systems
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Payload Rifle
RC-50 .50 cal
M-107 .50 cal

M
M 870
870 M870P Tactical Shotgun Future
Future
Modular
Modular
M870 Breaching Shotgun Shotgun
Shotgun

Future
M
M 60
60 M
M 240B
240B &
&HH Individual
Automatic
Weapon

Future
M
M 22 Machine
Gun

7
Questions?

8
 Location & Organization

¾ Location.
Commandant (CG-7D Small Arms)
Coast Guard Headquarters
2100 2nd Street SW, Room 3406
Washington, DC 20593
Phone: (202) 372-2030

¾ Organization.
• Office of Specialized Capabilities.
– Member of the Joint Service Small Arms Synchronization Team (JSSAST).
• Organization Staffing.
– Captain Scott Genovese (Deputy Assistant Commandant for Capabilities).
– LT Sean Cashell (Small Arms Program Manager).
– Chief Warrant Officer John McDaniel (Assistant Small Arms Program Manager).
• Liaison Positions.
– Small Arms Repair Facility at NSWC Crane, Indiana.
– Liaison to the Naval Operational Logistics Support Center (NOLSC) Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania.

9
 JSSAP

Future Small Arms Technology Plan Development

The Fusion of Science and Science Fiction

Joel M. Goldman

Chief, JSSAP Office

JSSAP’s Future Small Arms Technology Plan
The Fusion of Science and Science Fiction

Briefing Outline

Purpose
Futures I: The Science Fiction Writers
Futures II: The Scientists, Engineers and Military
Follow-on Activities: Plan Development
JSSAP’s Future Small Arms Technology Plan
The Fusion of Science and Science Fiction

Purpose

Develop the Foundations

of a
Mid-Far Term Technology Investment Strategy
for
The Joint Service Small Arms Program
 Futures I
The Science Fiction Concepts

Who: Principally Science Fiction Writers

When: 11-12 March 2008

What: Broad-based Concepts Identified and Assessed

- Positives
- Negatives
- Enhancements
- Potential

The Generation of Concepts That Will Lead to Creation of a Warfighter

Capable of Overwhelmingly Defeating the Enemy Combatant of the Future
 Futures I
The Science Fiction Concepts

The Science Fiction Writers

Charles Gannon

S. M. Stirling

Will McCarthy

Kathleen Goonan

Jeffery Carver

Arlan Andrews

Matt Armstrong

John Hemry

Michael Swanwick
 Futures I
The Science Fiction Concepts

The Process

4 Groups 4 Groups 4 Groups

SciFi Creativity Assessment Identify

Writers Sessions Pros Affinity
Presentations Via Cons Groupings
Brainstorming

Plenary Sessions
Interspersed

The Generation of Concepts That Will Lead to Creation of a Warfighter

Capable of Overwhelmingly Defeating the Enemy Combatant of the Future
 Sampling of Concepts

Robotic Dog (“Snoopy”)

Persian Donkey
G-D-H (Girlfriend – Dog – Hawk)

Understand Motivation of Enemy

Smart Dog Tag

Psychic Potential

Odors Sheddable Exoskeleton Personal Strap-on Jets

Artificial Muscles Brain Plasticity Zero Point Energy Antimatter

Prosthetics as Fighting Aids Panic Generator Explosive Suppressor

Kamikaze UAV Bombers Climate Change Nutraceuticals
Stealth via No Emissions Holographic Deception “Mouse”/Camera
 Futures I
The Science Fiction Concepts

Affinity Groupings

Intelligence Gathering – 10 Concepts

Human Factors – 18 Concepts

Increased Firepower – 18 Concepts

Increased Survivability – 5 Concepts

Increased Battlefield Impact – 23 Concepts

 Futures I
Example Concepts

Intelligence Gathering Increased Survivability

Understand motivation of enemy Odors
MOUT/counter-insurgent operations Demographic/friendly force specific products
where an enemy is not in uniform. Pros: Differentiates, allows IFF
Pros: Interpret actions as being friendly/hostile. Cons: One aspect of info (not 100% reliable)
Predictability, May be easy to spoof if the predominate
Diffuse confrontations, odors are due to cosmetics or laundry.
Empowering the warfighter
Cons: Requires training,
Leaves the decision in warfighters hands
Increased Battlefield Impact
Human Factors
Nanoparticle dust information gathering
Artificial muscles Projectile-based dispersal of small “dust sized”
For large muscle control and fine muscle control. information gathering particles.
May enable microsurgery on the battlefield Pros: Remote, versatile
Pros: Provides superhuman strength, reduces fatigue Lower interception/jamming potential
Cons: Unintended consequences Con: Environmental issues (wind, fans, etc)

Enhanced Firepower
Zero Point Energy
Tapping energy from the quantum vacuum.
Nanotech batteries may use this
technology.
Pros: Inexpensive, freely available energy
Cons: No technology to harvest or utilize
 Futures II
The Scientists, Engineers and Military

Who: SME’s from Military, Industry, Academia, Government and National Labs
When: 30 April-1 May 2008
What: Technologies Mapped to Concepts and Assessed
Concepts Assessed wrt Empowerment of Small Arms Platforms
- Lethality/Incapacitation
- Network Integration
- Overall Integration

Identify the Concepts That Can Empower the Warfighter’s Small Arms Platform
 Futures II
The Scientists, Engineers and Military

Process

Affinity Groupings 4 Groups 4 Groups

Intelligence Gathering Generate Assessment

Human Factors Additional Concepts; Mid to Long Term
Enhanced Firepower
Increased Battlefield Impact
& Rationale
Link Technologies

4 Groups 4 Groups
Prepare Report Assessment Assess
& Network Linkage to
Develop Plan Incapacitation Small Arms
Overall Integration Platforms
 Human Factors Example Output
Part I
Augment the Warfighter Mobility Via Sheddable Exoskeleton

Short Term

Long Term
Concept Technology Assessment with Support Rationale

Feasibility

Feasibility
Augment • Greater Load – Short Term/ Medium
the war • Greater warfighter agility – Long Term/Low
fighter Biomechanics H H • Lack of acceptance from user
mobility by • Biomechanical limitations of body
a sheddable • Scalable complexity
exoskeleton

Feasibility Ranking Legend: U = Undetermined, L = Low feasibility, M = Medium feasibility, H = High feasibility
Assessment to include challenges to implementation and concept/technology maturity
 Human Factors Example Output
Part II
Augment the Warfighter Mobility Via Sheddable Exoskeleton

Network centric
Incapacitation
or Linkage to

Incapacitation
Integration of

& Lethality or
Small Arms
Application

Lethality or
Integration
Concept or Platform Assessment with

Improved
Network
Centric
Technology Support Rationale

• Leverage shock mitigation work in

Biomechanics shipping sensitive materials
Actuators/power All • Weight and power concerns

DARPA
platforms Y N/A Y N/A • Maturity Level
•Short Term – Medium (load
SARCOS carriage)
ONR •Long Term – High (agility)
• Recommendation - Continue funding
Lightweight
materials •Customized applications
•Watch link to prosthetics
Sensor
•Partial exoskeleton

Application/Linkage Ranking Legend: Y = Yes, N = No

Network Centric Integration Ranking Legend: U = Undetermined Risk, L = Low Risk, M = Medium Risk, H = High Risk
Improved Lethality/Incapacitation Legend: U = Undetermined, Y =Yes, N = No
Integration of Network Centric & Lethality/Incapacitation Legend: U = Undetermined Risk, L = Low Risk, M = Medium Risk,
H = High Risk
 What’s Next?

Complete the Future Tech Assessment Report

Brief at National Small Arms Center Meeting
Solicit White Papers Submissions
Develop the Technology Plan

Forge a Technology Investment Strategy That Will Lead to Small Arms Systems
Capable of Overwhelmingly Defeating the Any Enemy Combatant of the Future
 “Enhancing Small Arms Effectiveness in
Current and Future Operations”

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A.
Approved for Public Release; distribution is unlimited.
Other requests shall be referred to the:
Office of the Project Manager for Maneuver
Ammunition Systems
ATTN: SFAE-AMO-MAS, Picatinny, NJ 07806-5000

Chris Grassano
Project Manager

22 May 2008

1
 Top 10 Military Instructions
10 - "AIM TOWARDS THE ENEMY." -Instruction printed on US Rocket Launcher

9 - "WHEN THE PIN IS PULLED, MR. GRENADE IS NOT OUR FRIEND." -US Marine Corps

8 - "CLUSTER BOMBING FROM B-52s IS VERY, VERY ACCURATE. THE BOMBS

ARE GUARANTEED TO ALWAYS HIT THE GROUND." -U.S.A.F. Ammo Troop.

7 - "IF THE ENEMY IS IN RANGE, SO ARE YOU." -Infantry Journal

6 - "A SLIPPING GEAR COULD LET YOUR M203 GRENADE LAUNCHER FIRE
WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT. THAT WOULD MAKE YOU QUITE UNPOPULAR
IN WHAT'S LEFT OF YOUR UNIT." -Army's magazine of prevention maintenance

5 - "TRY TO LOOK UNIMPORTANT; THE ENEMY MAY BE LOW ON AMMO." -Infantry

Journal

4 - "TRACERS WORK BOTH WAYS." -U.S. Army Ordnance

3 - "ANY SHIP CAN BE A MINESWEEPER....ONCE." -Anonymous

2 - "DON'T DRAW FIRE; IT IRRITATES THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU." -Infantry Journal

1 - "IF YOU SEE A BOMB TECHNICIAN RUNNING, TRY TO KEEP UP WITH HIM."
-U.S.A.F. Ammo Troop

2
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Project Manager
Maneuver Ammunition Systems (MAS)-Direct Fire

MISSION: PM MAS Provides Direct Fire Combat And Training Ammunition

Capabilities To All Warfighters (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines)
3
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Ammunition Products

100

69
TOTAL
189
20

Small Medium Large

Caliber Caliber Caliber
(5.56mm - .50 Cal) (20mm – 40mm) (105mm & 120mm)

4
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 PM MAS
FY08 Procurement Quantities
(What we are Ordering)

2008
5.56MM 1294.5M
7.62MM 240.3M
Small Caliber
(1,708M) .50 Cal 94.7M
9MM 62.6M
Shot Shells,
16.2M
Calibers .45, .22, 30
Medium and Medium 20MM 4.6M
Cannon Caliber
(27.5M) 25MM 2.2M
30MM 5.9M
40MM 14.8M
Large Caliber 105MM .012M
(207K)
120MM TRAINING .178M
120MM TACTICAL .017M
NOTE: All Services FY08 and Projected Supplemental 1.736B
1.736B ctgs
ctgs // $1.436B
$1.436B
for FY08
for FY08
5
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 PM-MAS 08 GOALS
ƒ Support Warfighters (GWOT)
– Production / Fielding
– Logistics Small
Small and
and Medium
Medium Caliber
Caliber
– Training
ƒƒ Support
Support Warfighter
Warfighter
ƒ High Performing, Agile & Ethical –– Meet
Meet Scheduled
Scheduled Production
Production Goals
Goals
Workforce –– Reduce Delivery Backlogs
Reduce Delivery Backlogs
– Grow People & Teams –– 40mm
40mm Baselining
Baselining
• Training
• Skills
– Effective Management ƒƒ High
High Performing
Performing Workforce
Workforce
• System & Family Approach –– Developmental
Developmental Assignments
Assignments
• Integrated Acquisition Lifecycle –– Training
Training // Certifications
Certifications
• War Reserve Management
ƒƒ Enhance
Enhance Strategic
Strategic Capabilities
Capabilities
ƒ Enhance Organic/Commercial Strategic –– Lake
Lake City
City Modernization
Modernization Program
Program
Capabilities –– Develop
Develop Future
Future Small
Small Caliber
Caliber and
and
– Shape Industrial Base Capacities to Meet 40mm Strategies
40mm Strategies
Requirements
– Modernize & Maintain Future Viability
– Identify/Establish Alternate Sources ƒƒ Field
Field Capability
Capability Improvements
Improvements
–– Green
Green Ammunition
Ammunition
ƒ Develop & Field Capability –– 40mm
40mm Pivoting Coupling
Pivoting Coupling
Improvements –– Small
Small Caliber
Caliber Case
Case Mouth
Mouth
– Large Cal Strategy Waterproofing
Waterproofing
– Airburst fuzing –– Downselect
Downselect 40mm
40mm High
High Velocity
Velocity Non-
Non-
– Small Cal RDT&E dud-producing Training Round
dud-producing Training Round
– FCS Support Configuration
Configuration
– Lethality
6
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Recent Past

ƒIn All Direct Fire Ammunition Families;

Continuing to Deliver at Highest Levels
Since Vietnam War

ƒCapacities and Sources Have Increased

– LCAAP - 1.2B (FY05) to 1.6B (FY07)
– Second Source Small Caliber - 300M
– New 40mm LAP Contractors

ƒNew Capabilities Have Been Fielded

– GREM
– 12 Gauge Breeching
– 7.62mm SRTA
– 5.56m / 9mm SESAMs part of CCMCK (pending)
– 40mm M992 IR Illum (pending)

Much
Muchfor
forGovernment
Governmentand
andIndustry
Industryto
tobe
beProud
Proud
7
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Small Caliber Acquisition Strategy
1-2-3-4 Strategy
1.5
Lake City Capacity
Capacity Expansion (400M) Ctgs. 33
Strategy to Remain
1.2
But Step
Quantities to Change
in FY09
Cartridges In Billions

0.9 Lake City

(1.2B) Ctgs.
11
0.6
44
Use Additional Capability
(200M) Ctgs.
0.3

Second Source Contract

For Commercial Capacity
(300M) Ctgs.
0 22
Lake City System Contractor
(Organic Capability) (Commercial Capability)
8
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Small Caliber Ammunition Deliveries
72M (All Services)
2,000,000,000

1716M
1,800,000,000 Assumes
Deliveries
Deliveries Nearly
Nearly 60M No Major Crisis
1554M 1514M
Quadruple
Quadruple 1507M 88M
1,600,000,000 1458M
92M 280M
92M 79M
86M 1327M
88M
1,400,000,000 6 1M
180M
1226M 245M 1230M
204M 322M
1288M 1173M
72M 180M
1,200,000,000 122M 60M 1082M 180M
1151M 173M 83M
33M 1131M 180M
96M 8 7M 63M
180M
1,000,000,000 1026M
73 M 76M
974M 972M 103M
809M 63M
76M 108M
872M 112M
82M
800,000,000 139M 806M
155M 742M
561M 2 5M
73M
600,000,000 589M
572M
134M
13 M
35M Proj Walk Ins
400,000,000
377M
Handgun & Misc
200,000,000 .50Cal
7.62mm
5.56mm
0
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13

9
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Small Caliber Roadmap
LCAAP Bridge Contract New SCA Contract Strategy

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
Light Weight
Propellant /Tracer
Packaging

5.56mm A059 M855 M855LFS M855 LF

Green Primer

Light Weight
Propellant /Tracer
Packaging

7.62mm A131
M80/M62 M80/M62LFS 7.62mm LF
(M80/M62)
Green Primer

Propellant /Tracer
Packaging

.50 caliber A557 M8/M20 .50 Cal LF

(M8/M20)
Green Primer
Improved AP

Second Source Contract New 2nd Source Contract

LCAAP Modernization Projected

•• Sustains
Sustains Training
Training Ammo
Ammo Support
Support Funded
•• Meets
Meets Existing Tactical Requirements
Existing Tactical Requirements and
and Builds
Builds Tactical
Tactical Stockpile
Stockpile
•• Implements Unfunded
Implements Green
Green Program
Program
10
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Small Caliber NRE Efforts
Before After

ƒ Lake City AAP Modernization – Positions

This National Asset for Future Use
– 7.62mm BAM Upgrade Depicted

ƒ Case Mouth Waterproofing - Qualify

Alternative Case Mouth Waterproofing Sealant Applied
Sealant Materials/Process to Increase
Throughput by Reduction in “Leakers”
– Reduce Failure Rate From 7% to 2 %

Commercial Pack Wirebound Elimination

ƒ Packaging - Develop More Cost-Effective,
High-performance Commercial Package
for 5.56mm CONUS Range-fired
Ammunition
– Wirebound Elimination - $ 6M / yr savings
– Simplified Bandoleer - $ 5M / yr Savings

11
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 M855 LFS Green Ammunition

ƒField an Environmentally
Friendly 5.56mm Cartridge
That Will Exhibit
Comparable Performance
to Current Leaded M855
– Operational in M4, M16 and M249
Weapon Systems
– Round Utilizes Latest Science
and Technology to Improve
Upon all Aspects of Round
(Environmental Compliance,
Accuracy)
– Ballistically Matched to Army's
Current Ball Round so There will
be Minimal Training Impact
– M855LFS will Begin Production
Late FY08

12
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 40MM Grenade Family of Munitions
Mk 19 M203
Current
Current Acquisition
Acquisition Strategy
Strategy Grenade Grenade
ƒƒ Systems Launcher Launcher
Systems Contract
Contract Strategy
Strategy (High Velocity 40MM) (Low Velocity 40MM)
–– 22Joint
JointVenture
VentureSmall
SmallBusiness
BusinessTeams
Teams
ƒƒ Government
Government Focusing
Focusing on
on Products/
Products/
Industrial
Industrial Base,
Base, Not
Not Parts
Parts

Examples of High and Low Velocity

40MM Grenades

Future
Future Challenges
Challenges
ƒƒ Iowa
Iowa // Milan
Milan Competition
Competition (FY09)
(FY09)
ƒƒ Follow-on
Follow-on Systems
Systems Contract
Contract (FY10)
(FY10)
M918 M430A1 M781 M433
High Low

13
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 40mm Deliveries
(All Services)
3 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 L o w V e lo c ity T a c t ic a l
H ig h V e lo c ity T a c t ic a l
26 M L o w V e lo c ity T r a in in g
26M
H ig h V e lo c ity T r a in in g

.0 5 M
2M
2 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0

Deliveries
Deliveries Nearly
Nearly 4M
5M

Quadruple
Quadruple
19M
2 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
18M
4M
1M 6M 16M
1M 16M

2M
4M 1M
1 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 2M
13M
12 M

1M 3M 1M 5M
1M
9M
9M 5M
1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 3M
7M 7M 0 .3 M
17M
8M 15M
0 .4 M 6M
1M
6M
2M 0 .2 M 11 M
5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 4M 10M
2M 8M 8M

5M
4M 4M
3M 3M 3M

0
FY 02 FY 03 F Y04 F Y05 FY0 6 FY 07 FY 08 F Y09 FY1 0 FY 11 FY 12 F Y13

14
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 40mm Roadmap
New Milan AAP LAP Contract

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
Air Burst
MEMS Fuze
High Velocity Liner
(HV) HEDP Pivot M430 A1 M430 A2
Coupling
(M430A1/B542)
Warhead Replacement

MEMS Fuze

Liner
Low Velocity
(LV) HEDP M433 M433 A1
(M433/B546)
One-Piece Body
Warhead Improvement
Air Burst

NDP Trainers SCCC

Mixed Belt
M385/M918 M918 Mixed Belt Mk281 Mod 1 Non-Dud Producing
NDP HV
NDP Day Night
LV XM1110 LV Day/Night Trainer

New Systems Contract New Systems Contract

Projected
•• Ammo
Ammo Suite
Suite Satisfies
Satisfies ALL
ALL EXISITING
EXISITING 40mm
40mm Tactical
Tactical Requirements
Requirements
•• HV and LV Trainers Will be Full NDP by FY12
HV and LV Trainers Will be Full NDP by FY12 Funded

Unfunded
15
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 40MM NRE Efforts
ƒ Pivoting Couplings
– Combat Advantage: Link Next Belt of Ammo to One
Currently Loaded in Mk19; No Need to Stop and Re-
Load
– Cost Savings: Add Single Round or Partial Belts to
Existing Belt, so That Ammo is Not Wasted ($ 1M / yr)
– Scheduled for Implementation in 4QFY08

ƒ Single Chamber Cartridge Case

– Eliminate Gun Stoppage Due to Excessive Base Plug Movement
– Eliminate Bolt Face Erosion Due to the Leaking of Hot Propellant
Gases Past Base Plug
– Reduce Cost by Eliminating Base Plug and Closing Cup ($.30 / ctg),
Easing Manufacturing Processes ($.30 / ctg), and Reducing
Critical/Major Defect Inspections

ƒ M433 Improvement
– Improve Robustness of Design and Create More Consistent Function by
Reducing Number of Components and Defect Inspections
– Potential for Cost Savings Resulting from Less Complicated Design, Use
of Production Methods Common with M430A1 HEDP, and Reduction of
Touch Labor (Savings estimates not yet established)
16
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Future for Direct Fire Ammunition

Strategic Situation
ƒ Production: At Capacity in Many Cases
ƒ Requirements: Downturn on Horizon
– Training - Replace Expenditures Only
– Operational - Replace Expenditures & Build Stockpile
ƒ Expenditures:
– Training – recently at 40% requirement, historical at 70%
– Operational – steady since FY06
ƒ Stockpile: Increasing Daily…At or Nearing Objectives
Requirements for Many Items
ƒ FMS: On the Rise (223M Rounds So Far in FY08)

Challenges
ChallengesAhead,
Ahead,But
ButOpportunities
OpportunitiesExist
Exist
17
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Future Years Outlook

Beyond 2008
Lower but Large FMS Orders Are
5.56MM
Mitigating – Also Green Ammo

Small Caliber 7.62MM Lower – New Green Ammo Reqts

.50 Cal Continued Sustained +100M/yr
9MM Steady Reqts
Shot Shells,
Steady Reqts
Calibers .45, .22, .30
Medium and 20MM Steady AF & Navy Reqts
Medium Cannon
Caliber 25MM Minimum Sustaining Buys
30mm x 113mm: Higher Reqts for M789
30MM & M788 Steady
30mm x 173mm: Slow Growth
Min HEDP Buys – Training Ammo
40MM Switch to Non Dud Producing – Overall
Lower Buys

18
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 Industry Opportunities
Technologies the Army is Looking to Obtain

ƒ Improved Lethality
– 5.56mm thru 40mm

ƒ Cost Avoidance
– Packaging, Materials, Reduced Weight

ƒ Advanced Fuzing
– Self Destruct, Increased Reliability, Cheaper

ƒ Reduced Signature
– Reduced Flash, Smoke, Non-pyrotechnic Tracer

ƒ Improved Accuracy

ƒ High Energy Propellants

– Higher Velocity, IM Attributes, Temperature Insensitive

Respond
Respond thru
thru System
System Contractors,
Contractors, NASTC,
NASTC, Unsolicited
Unsolicited Proposal,
Proposal, Web
Web Page,
Page, NWEC
NWEC
19
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
 EOM

Questions?

20
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
NEGEV Light Machine
GUN (LMG) 5.56 mm
Speaker: Lt. Col. Mike Hartman
Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)

Commanding officer in charge of

sniper rifles, assault rifles (A.R)
and light machine guns technology
& implementation at the IDF
Ordnance Division 2000-2007
Background

• The Negev LMG is in service in the IDF since

1997.

• The Negev LMG was chosen by the IDF after

extensive comparison tests initiated and made by
the IDF ordnance corps among similar LMG's
weapon systems.

2
 Background

• During its service time few modifications were implemented

in full coordination with the IDF infantry and ordnance
corps in order to meet the IDF characteristics and current
needs.

• The Negev LMG is the weapon of choice of the IDF because

of it's versatility, durability and reliability .

• The Negev completed successfully the type classification

procedure by the IDF.

3
The NEGEV as a fire power multiplier in the current and future battlefield

As part of the lessons derived from the Israeli Army

operational activities and considering the current anti terror
efforts the IDF decided to modify the Negev LMG to be lighter,
shorter, more accurate and durable weapon.

4
One weapon - dual purpose
• The NEGEV offers 2 different combat applications: one as
an assault rifle and the other one as a machine gun.
• 5.56 mm light machine gun with a high rate of firepower
that can be set on a bipod or mounted on a vehicle.
• A configuration of Light assault rifle operated by a single
warfighter.

5
Accurate and selective fire in Close Quarters Battle (CQB)

• The IDF specify the NEGEV LMG to be able to shoot both

single and selective fire.
• The ability to use a variety of accessories for increasing the
LMG’s effectiveness.

6
Accurate and selective fire in Close Quarters Battle (CQB)

• The picatinny rails placed in various positions on the NEGEV

frame (not on moving parts or heated parts such as upper
cover, gas port or barrel).
• Maintain zeroing for longer period of time.
• Extremely Low recoil (less than the average assault rifle).

7
Effectiveness in use at narrow alleys & in cavities inside APC's

•The NEGEV has the ability to be fully operated while stock is

folded.
(total length in folded position is 26.7' only) allowing operation
comfortably in narrow places such as alleys, inside houses,
buildings & quick exiting from Vehicles.

8
Effectiveness in use at narrow alleys & in cavities inside APC's

The LMG is equipped with an assault handle (versatile position,

left or right) that allows stable shooting from shoulder, armpit or
hip.
•The Negev is equipped with a detachable bipod which is durable
and strong enough to allow a continuous rate of fire from all
types of surfaces.

9
Hostile environment
patrols and special security missions in urban
warfare
• The NEGEV LMG can be equipped with a rifle grenade
(Simon device, Anti Tanks & Anti personnel grenades etc.)
• Capable of firing various types of ammo, including less-
than-lethal charges and devices.

10
Hostile environment
patrols and special security missions in urban
warfare
The NEGEV LMG can be equipped with sound suppressor to
reduce noise and flash in close quarters environments.
• the NEGEV LMG has the ability for QBC (quick barrel
change) at a minimum time of 1.3 seconds, while using
various barrel lengths.

11
Durability & Safety

• The NEGEV is equipped with a gas regulator to allow full

operation during sand storms, muddy areas, Snow, salt-
water environment and other extreme weather &
environmental conditions.

12
Durability & Safety

Ratchet mechanism prevents unintended closure before

reaching the full cocking position
Once the weapon is set on the safety mode (Any position):

• The gun can't be cocked

• The trigger is deactivated

13
Technical Characteristics

Weight, weapon, unloaded: 15 LBS

Length, butt extended: 35 inch

Length, butt folded: 26.7 inch

Barrel length: 13 inch

Muzzle velocity: 3001 ft/s

Rate of fire: 850 - 1,050 rds/min

Max effective range: 3280 ft

14
Summary

• The IDF infantry doctrine based on the ability to use the

new LMG as a versatile weapon system, easy to operate
which can be used by any member of the party / company.
• As such, the Negev LMG weapon system meets or surpass
the IDF requirements for light machine guns and therefore
was chosen to be the weapon system of choice.

15
 Contact Information

North East Technologies (NET) Ltd

P.O Box 1001
Kfar Sava, 44100 Israel
E-mail: Netech@ne-tech.com
Website: www.ne-tech.com

The Negev LMG is manufactures in Israel by

Israel Weapon Industries (IWI) Ltd.
Website: www.israel-weapon.com

16
The End

17
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Non-Lethal Weapons
Human Effects
5/22/08

711 HPW/RHDJ
Bldg 1168, Room 100E P: 210-536-2147
8355 Hawks Rd. F: 210-536-2783
Brooks City-Base, TX 78235-5147 C: 210-577-0006
james.simonds@brooks.af.mil DSN: 240-2147

Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

What are NLW Human Effects?

Directed Energy
“The definition of ‘Human
Multi-Sensory
Effects,’ as applied to Stimuli
NLWs, may include any Collective Behavior
of the following: health
effects to the weapon
user, human targets, and
humans near the target,
and effectiveness of the Blunt Impact Toxicology
weapon against human
targets.”
- Human Effects Process
Action Team Report, Jan 2000

2
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Key Definitions

• Non-Lethal Weapons: Weapons, devices and munitions that are explicitly

designed and primarily employed to immediately incapacitate targeted
personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to
personnel, and undesired damage to property in the target area or
environment. Non-lethal weapons are intended to have reversible effects on
personnel or materiel. (CBART)

• Injury: A term comprising such conditions as fractures, wounds, sprains,

strains, dislocations, concussions, and compressions. In addition, it
includes conditions resulting from extremes of temperature or prolonged
exposure. Acute poisonings (except those due to contaminated foods)
resulting from exposure to a toxic or poisonous substance are also classed
as injuries. (JP 1-02)

• Permanent Injury: Physical damage which permanently impairs

physiological function that restricts employment and/or other activities of a
person for the rest of his/her life. (CBART)

• Reversibility: The ability to return the target to its pre-engagement level of

capability. It is usually measured by time and level of effort required for
recovery of the target. (NLRT)
3
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

NLW Human
Effects Characterization
100
100
Desired Permanent
Effect Most will Injury
Effectiveness = be affected

Probability of Effect (%)

Probability of Effect (%)

Lethality

for elop ng
Op sired

NL e
Env erati
W
De
50 50

Operating Region
Of Lethal Weapons

Very few
0
will experience
0
Dose
permanent injury
Dose
• Generally, the goal of lethal weapons has been to maximize a single effect –
lethality, while meeting the constraints of LOAC, logistics, cost, etc.
• For NLW, two competing objectives exist: cause a desired effect, while minimizing
permanent injury.
• Understanding human effects is critical for legal/treaty reviews, policy acceptability,
and warfighter awareness. 4
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

JNLWP Human Effects Process

JNLWD – Human Effects Branch Human Effects Center of Excellence
- Provide HE strategy - Portfolio (research) managers
- Resource HE research - Directed Energy, Blunt Impact, Acoustics, Etc.
- Coordinate HE reviews - HE knowledge-base, Consultative Expertise
- HE – Modeling Analysis Program (HE-MAP)
- Human Effects Risk Characterizations
HERB
- Joint Service Board of Treaty,
Medical & Safety
Legal, Program Manager
Officers
- Legal Treaty, & Policy
Policy
SME representatives reviews
- HE Safety, Training,
Experimentation Milestone Decision Authority
guidance

HEAP
- Non-government Board Fielded
of Bioeffects SMEs Capability

Direction/coordination Reports

5
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Human Effects Process

and Acquisition
•Human Effects Review Board •Human Effects Center of Excellence
•Enumeration of significant health/operational risks •Repository of NLW data
•Recommendations to reduce or better characterize the risk •Supplies human effects expertise to the PM

•Human Effects Advisory Panel: reviews performed as necessary based on Directorate needs

A B B C IOC FOC
CR TD System System LRIP Full-Rate Production Sustainment
Integration Demo & Deployment

Review Review Review

Concept & Tech Devel System Dev & Demonstration Production & Deployment O&S

Concept Tech LRIP, Full-Rate

System System Prod &
Pre-Mile A Refinement Development Integration Demonstration Deployment
z Basic research to z Technology Reviews z T&E Support
verify HE z Execute THEEP
z HE Support to AoMCs z Draft of THEEP* z Live fire z Field data
mechanisms z Studies to determine animal/human collection
z Preliminary payload z Begin studies to operating envelope
z Operational utility assessment quantify and reduce testing (if z Refine modeling
studies z Mission needs risk appropriate) and simulation
z Initial estimate of definition z Component design z Full Risk tools
safety margin z Human Effects guidance Characterization
z Front-end look at Resource Estimates z Preliminary Risk
new technology Characterization *Target Human Effects Evaluation Plan

Increasing human effects knowledge, decreasing risk

Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release 6
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) Human Effects Readiness Levels

Acquisition Interim Guidance (30 May 2003) (HERL)

Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission Human or surrogate participation in operation
System Field 9 conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation.
Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.
testing. Data validated from live fire
Test and experimentation and fielding.
Operations
Technology has been proven to work in its final form and under expected Human or surrogate tests in field environment
conditions. In almost all cases, this TRL represents the end of true system
8 development. Examples include developmental test and evaluation of the
with mature prototype systems under realistic
System / system in its intended weapon system to determine if it meets design conditions.
Subsystem specifications.
Development
Prototype near, or at, planned operational system. Represents a major step up Human studies or surrogates in lab or field
7 from TRL 6, requiring demonstration of an actual system prototype in an environments with prototype systems under
operational environment such as an aircraft, vehicle, or space. Examples
include testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft. specific, highly controlled, exposure conditions.

Representative model or prototype system, which is well beyond that of TRL 5, Non-human primate or large animal models
Technology 6 is tested in a relevant environment. Represents a major step up in a
technology's demonstrated readiness. Examples include testing a prototype in
confirm safety. Provide basis of limited human
Demonstration studies in laboratory to examine effectiveness.
a high-fidelity laboratory environment or in simulated operational environment.

Fidelity of breadboard technology increases significantly. The basic Studies in large animal models to more fully
5 technological components are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting
elements so it can be tested in a simulated environment. Examples include
characterize effects, demonstrate technology
Technology "high fidelity" laboratory integration of components. effectiveness and safety.
Development
Basic technological components are integrated to establish that they will work Bioeffect mechanism accepted by scientific
4 together. This is relatively "low fidelity" compared to the eventual system. community; small animal studies conducted to
Examples include integration of "ad hoc" hardware in the laboratory.
develop dose-response relationships.

Active research and development is initiated. This includes analytical studies Bioeffect mechanism clearly identified; studies
Research to
Prove
3 and laboratory studies to physically validate analytical predictions of separate
to determine dose-response relationship
elements of technology. Examples include components that are not yet
Feasibility integrated or representative. planned or began in small animal models.

Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can In vitro and cellular models used to study
2 be invented. Applications are speculative and there may be no proof or detailed
postulated bioeffect mechanisms; important
analysis to support the assumptions. Examples are limited to analytic studies.
dose-response parameters are postulated.
Basic
Technology Lowest level of technology readiness. Scientific research begins to be Bioeffect mechanism postulated through paper
translated into applied research and development. Examples might include
studies, theoretical analysis.
1 paper studies of a technology's basic properties.

7
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Payloads and Associated

Human Effects Knowledge
- Variety of payloads and non-lethal stimuli with varying degrees of confidence in
understanding of human effects
- Blunt Impact:
- Validated injury prediction M&S tool (HE-MAP’s Advanced Total Body Model)
- Behavioral research difficult, efforts being made to develop predictive link between
blunt impact and behavioral modification
- Acoustics:
- Injury thresholds well established
- Effectiveness thresholds exist for impulse noise
- Electromagnetic Spectrum:
- M&S tools and data exist for much of the EM spectrum for both injury and
effectiveness
- Limiting factor in human effects is generally ability to predict behavioral response
to exposure of non-lethal stimuli

8
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Human Effects
Characterization Process
-Transition in way of doing business:
- Used to do retrospective analysis
- Now will provide prospective analysis
- Design optimization
- Effects based design
- 5 step characterization process:
- Determine exposure
- Determine body response
- Map to injury correlation
- Determine behavioral response
- Determine if engagement meets mission objectives

9
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Industry and Human Effects

Modeling and Simulation
- M&S analysis requires JNLWD or Service interest
- Data needs for analysis:
- Sample munitions, projectiles, force-time histories, etc.
- Projectile material, composition of grenade fill, etc.
- Muzzle velocities
- Accuracy/dispersion data
- Light, sound, pressure, heat flux
- etc.

10
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Determine Exposure
[40 mm marker rounds] Cd = 0.241, β = 0.00489 (1/m) 45
Azimuthdirection Elevationdirection
150 0.8 0.8
Test Data 40 Specimen_1
Fitting 0.6 0.6 Specimen_2
140 35
Specimen_3
0.4
0.4 30 Specimen_4

Stress (MPa)
130 Specimen_5
0.2 25
V e l o c i ty ( m / s )

0.2

Error (m)
Error (m)
20
120 0

0 15
-0.2
110 10
-0.2
-0.4
5
100 -0.4
Strain
-0.6 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
90 -0.8 -0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Distance(m) Distance(m)
Range (m)

Calculation of Calculation of
dragging coefficient accuracy parameters

18
150 Test Data FEM Calibration
FEM Calibration 16 Test Data

14

12
100
10
Force (kN)
Force (N)

50
4

0 -2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Distance (mm) Time (ms)

Static calibration Dynamic calibration Projectile modeling and impact

simulation

11
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Human Effects Modeling Analysis Program

(HE-MAP)
HEMAP-
HEMAP-Web Application: web analysis interface HEMAP-
HEMAP-MSG Application: graphical simulation
Quick Estimator (HEQE) “Virtual training”
training”
Effects Based Analysis (EBA) Learn to use NLW
Design Optimization (DOA) Practice engagement techniques

HEMAP Development Plan Database of NLW system and payload based effects data
Import into HEMAP-web and HEMAP-MSG

(testing Æ payload characterization Æ delivery Æ effects outcomes

Responses/Effects Payload delivery Source characterization Testing

Projectile /fragment Accuracy/ Impact Firing/impact

ATBM Projectile /fragment Accuracy/ Impact Firing/impact
ATBM Delivery Characterization Accuracy Test
Delivery Characterization Accuracy Test
Blast Blast source Blast test
INJURY Blast Blast source Blast test
INJURY Delivery Characterization (BTD)
Delivery Characterization (BTD)
Heat Heat source Explosion
BURNSIM Heat Heat source Explosion
BURNSIM Delivery Characterization (heat flux)
Delivery Characterization (heat flux)

IMPULSE NOISE, RF, OPTICAL, ELECTRICAL (TASER), …

HEMAP Research: develop, integrate, validate, and verify models, data, and analysis methods
Model
Model Model
Model Model
Model Data
Data collection
collection Testing
Testing method,
method, procedure,
procedure,
development
development integration
integration VV&A
VV&A (Human,
(Human, PMHS,
PMHS, Animal)
Animal) standard
standard

¾R&D: better integration of human effects models for all types payloads of interests;
¾Application products: better support users’ needs for analysis, design, training capabilities

12
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Predict Body Response and Injury

Thorax FE modeling Head FE modeling Abdominal FE modeling

100
Regression Curve
90 95% CFB

80

70
Prob of Rib Fracture (%)

← P=1/(1+exp( -6.826+ 0.0515x)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
50 100 1 50 2 00
Normal Stress (MPa)

Rib fracture correlation Lung injury correlation

13
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Mission Assessment

The software model and simulation environment can account Using semi-immersive technologies (headset and weapon)
for complex human effects and behavior outcomes to engage in the training in Virtual Reality. The headset can
be connected wirelessly to the main station and display.

14
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Blunt Impact Example

• NL PM asked HECOE to perform analysis for two
candidate projectiles
• Injury analysis expected to aid PM in down-selecting to
final design

15
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Exposure
• Determine down-range velocities (impact velocities)
• Determine accuracy and hence probability of strike and strike location
• Mechanical characterization of projectiles and Finite Element (FE) model
development
1500
1400
Test Data
Test Data
ITBM Calibration
1200 ITBM Calibration

1000
1000
Force (N)

800

Force (N)
600

500
400

200

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

16
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Advanced Total Body Model (ATBM)

• Advanced Total Body

Model (ATBM) is a
JNLWP sponsored finite
element based blunt
trauma injury prediction
model
• Biomechanically based,
applicable for NLW
impacts and validated
against animal and
cadaveric data
• Predicts a variety of
injuries for the head, neck,
thorax, abdomen, skin
and extremities
• Includes design
optimization and
probability of hit modules
• Established projectile
characterization process
including static and
dynamic loading to
develop projectile FE
model

17
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Body Response and

Injury Correlation
• Thousands of FE simulations performed for various impact velocities and impact locations
• Yields predicted body response (i.e. strain in the rib) as a function of applied stress
• Predicted response mapped to injury correlations for various tissues and organs
• Injury predictions generated for various injury modalities

100
Regression Cu rv e
90 95% CFB

80

70

Prob of Rib Fracture (%)

← P=1/(1+exp( -6.826+ 0.0515x)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
50 100 150 200
Normal Stress (MPa)

18
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
 Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release

Summary

• Understanding the human effects and effectiveness

of non-lethal weapons is fundamental to their
development.
• The JNLWP has developed a process to facilitate
understanding these human effects and to support
the JNLW community.
• The process will be codified in a Department of
Defense Instruction on NLW Human Effects
Characterization.
• Modeling and simulation tools aiding non-lethal
community in predicting effects and effectiveness
from non-lethal weapon deployment

19
Distribution Statement A – Approved For Public Release
Improved Flash Bang Grenade (IFBG)

National Defense Industrial

Association
Small Arms Systems Symposium
22 May 2008

Ned Carroll
Jacobs Technology Inc.
813.282.3500 Ext. 219 Fax 813.282.0100
Edward.Carroll@usog.jacobs.com

Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release

 Background
• Flash-Bang Grenade Capability Production Document
Signed 11 Feb 2008
– Increment I – Mk 141 – Removed from Service Use Due to Safety
Issues
– Increment II – BTV-1 – Currently used by USMC
– Increment III – IFBG – Follow-on Spiral with Increased Capability and
Enhanced Safety Characteristics

BTV-1 IFBG Prototype

Mk 141
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release 2
 Project Goals
•DESCRIPTION:
•Develop and Procure a Safer, More Effective, Hand-employed
Flash-bang Grenade With Greater Light Output That
Increases Duration Of Flash-blindness and Generates
Debilitating Sound Pressure Levels.
•Removal of Harmful Perchlorates Improves Safety to The
Warfighter, and Improves Environmental, Health & Safety
Compliance
•FISCAL YEAR OBJECTIVES:
•Technical Development and Testing Prototypes
•Early User Assessment
•Milestone B Decision
•Signed Capability Production Document (CPD)
•Initiate Competition for Bid Sample Testing
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release 3
 Development Goals
• Develop and Procure a Flash-Bang Grenade with the
following Characteristics:
– Increased Duration of Human Incapacitation
– All Human Effects are Reversible – No Permanent Injuries
• Increase Total Light Output to Increase Duration of
Reversible Flash-Blindness (Threshold = 10 seconds)
• Maintain Pressure Levels to Safely Startle / Confuse
Target Subjects
• Elimination of Harmful Perchlorates in Payload.
Perchlorates have a Negative Impact on the
Environment and the Warfighters that Train with & Use
Flash-Bang Grenades

Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release 4

 Near Term Schedule
Task, Milestone, or FY08 FY09
Deliverable 1st Quarter 2nd quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter
O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
EUA Prototype
Development
Prototype Build

EUA
MS B

Development Contract

Sources Sought

Industry Day

Source Selection Plan

RFP

Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release 5

 Sources Sought Information
• Sources Sought Synopsis was Released on 31 Jan 08.
Copies Available today
• AFRL Flash-Blindness & Glare Modeling Publication (Kosnick
& Smith, May 2003) Also Available Today (Approved for
Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)
• Request for Proposals will be Released in September 08
• Industry Day will be Held in September 08 Immediately after
release of the RFP to Clarify Requirements and Evaluation
Methods

Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release 6

 Questions?
POC: Ned Carroll
813-282-3500 x219
Edward.Carroll@USOG.Jacobs.com

Alternate POC: Mr. Brandon J. Boeglin

(812) 854-1912
brandon.boeglin@navy.mil

Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release 7

 M870REV SHOTGUN

Kevin G. Adams
US Army ARDEC
Armament Technology Facility
Picatinny Arsenal
973-724-8577
kevin.g.adams@us.army.mil
Development of the M870REV Non-Lethal
Shotgun System for use with the EM113REV

Kevin G. Adams, R&D Gunsmith, Armament Technology Facility

 M870REV SHOTGUN

INTRODUCTION
• The United States Army Military Police
expressed a requirement in obtaining a riot
control vehicle to meet the unique mission
needs of entering prisoner of war camps.
• In executing their mission, the US Army
Military Police faces the risk of lethal
weapons falling into the hands of prisoners
when using standard small arms weapons
systems and must consider not using lethal
force in certain situations.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

REQUIREMENTS
• The US Army Military Police requires a
vehicle employing a Non-Lethal weapons
system that will be capable of engaging and
defeating a variety of barricades and
personnel targets, while minimizing the
potential for soldiers to be injured or
captured.
• It is required that this vehicle be armed with a
Non-Lethal weapon platform, using standard
12ga non-lethal ammunition.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

DEVELOPMENT

• In 2005 the Armament Research, Development and Engineering

Center at Picatinny Arsenal began development of an innovative
approach to using non-lethal shotguns for riot control in the
theater internment facilities in Iraq.
• The non-lethal weapons part of the project was given to the
Research & Development Gunsmith Shop at the ARDEC
Armament Technology Facility (ATF).
• A pump shotgun was needed since the weapon system had to
fire M1012 and M1013 non-lethal rounds.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

DESIGN

Current design fielded in October 2006 includes:

• Enhancements to structural design of the shotguns to
handle the unique impulses experienced by the hull-
mounted shotgun.
• Ventilation concept borrowed from the early Bradley
Fighting Vehicles.
• An immediate, armor-protected non-lethal response
that can be used to deter riots or restore order.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

EM113REV
 M870REV SHOTGUN

M870

• The ATF R&D Gunsmith shop started with the 12

gauge Remington M870 Police shotgun since it has a
steel receiver and is in the US Army system.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

M231 FIRING PORT

• Port for the M231 5.56mm firing port weapon from the M2
Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
• This port had already been tested and safety released.
• Threaded collars from the M231 barrels were used to attach the
shotguns to the firing port.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

DESIGN
On the first prototype the following modifications were done to
the shotguns:
• Replace buttstock with pistol grip.
• Replace standard forearm with pistol grip forearm.
• Bore out and TIG weld the M231 threaded collar to the shotgun
barrel.

New Pistol Grip M231 COLLAR

New Pistol Grip
 M870REV SHOTGUN

TESTING

• Initial ATF testing in a test fixture with 00 buckshot, for

increased recoil, showed no problems with the design.
• Aberdeen Proving Grounds (APG) testing in the EM113REV,
using M1012 and M1013 non-lethal ammunition, showed
problems with the brazed joint on the magazine support
breaking and the barrel pulling out of the receiver.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

TESTING
• High speed video using 00 buckshot, in the EM113REV showed
that there was some flexibility in the test fixture and none in the
actual vehicle.

• It also showed that the pistol grip forend allowed the operators
to exert forces on the magazine joint like a slide hammer,
exceeding the strength of the joint.

• In a normal configuration and fired from the shoulder, all the

firing and recoil forces are directed rearward and all the weapon
components are compressed against the shoulder/buttstock.

• In the modified configuration, all the recoil forces are still

directed rearward, but because the muzzle end is attached to
the mount, all the forces caused the components to separate.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

SOLUTIONS

• The ARDEC design team experimented with various

ideas through computer simulation and modeling and
came up with several solutions.

• The ATF R&D Gunsmith shop built two of the leading

designs for further live fire testing.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

DESIGN – Two New Prototypes

10-32 Screws

Welded Support

• Welded figure-8 magazine • Spring surrounding barrel,

support allows M231 collar to absorb
some recoil.
• Two 10-32 receiver screws
• Figure-8 magazine support was
• Solidly welded M231 collar TIG welded to the barrel.
• Added two 10-32 machine
screws through the left side of
the receiver, into the barrel
extension.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

FURTHER TESTING
• During testing at the ATF in the EM113REV using high speed
video and 12 gauge 00 buckshot, it was found that the spring
loaded design gave a double recoil impulse to the weapon.
• The non-spring design worked better and was easier to
manufacture.
• This is the design that was settled upon
 M870REV SHOTGUN

TESTING: ATF

• Five guns built.

• M1012 and M1013 non-lethal ammunition
fired through each weapon.
• Results: build-up of irritating fumes inside
the EM113REV.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

FUME HOOD: DEVELOPMENT

Aluminum hood

Duct Tape 10-32 Screws

• Attached using the 10-32 barrel retention screws

• M2 Bradley Cabin exhaust fans used with hoods
 M870REV SHOTGUN

FUME HOOD: TESTING

• Hood tied into the exhaust fans using PVC pipe and plastic
vacuum cleaner hose.
• Initial testing at ATF with aluminum prototypes.
• Further testing at APG with the TIG welded prototype.
• The weapon system was safety released and fielded.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

FIELDED DESIGN
 M870REV SHOTGUN

AWARDS
• EM113REV and its weapon systems validated by
combat veterans
• US Army’s Top Ten Greatest Inventions Award 2006.
• Patents pending on EM113REV and M870REV.
 M870REV SHOTGUN

2006 US ARMY TOP TEN GREATEST INVENTIONS

 M870REV SHOTGUN

ANY QUESTIONS?
 real time fire control solution for
individual and crew-served direct firing
infantry weapons -
algorithm and implementation

A. Kuhrt
H. Rothe

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Mazár-e-Sharif
08 0730 D may 08
rH: 60% T: 71°F

target range: 1500m

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-2-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
target range: 1500m Mazár-e-Sharif
Chair for Measurement and Information Technology
-3-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Agenda

1. Status quo
2. Requirements
3. Theoretical Approach
4. Algorithm
5. Testing and Accuracy
6. Performance
7. Implementation
8. Conclusions

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-4-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Status Quo

LRF

DMC

GPS
PDA

thermal
sight

video sight
Chair for Measurement and Information Technology
-5-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Requirements

requirement fulfilled

range- and crosswind

arbitrary angle of site

muzzle velocity

coriolis force

magnus force

multiple ammunitions

height dependent air temperature

height dependent air pressure

user-defined targeting sights

time fuze capability

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-6-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Approach

Point Mass Trajectory Model

height
only drag and gravity acting on projectile

adding flat fire assumptions

range

Adding generalized power drag law

analytically solvable set of

differential equations of motion

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-7-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Approach

Point Mass Trajectory Model

normalized height above LOS

only drag and gravity acting on projectile

adding flat fire assumptions

normalized range
Adding generalized power drag law

analytically solvable set of

differential equations of motion

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-8-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Approach

Point Mass Trajectory Model

only drag and gravity acting on projectile

adding flat fire assumptions

Adding generalized power drag law

analytically solvable set of

differential equations of motion

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-9-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Algorithm

9 super elevation
9 striking veloctiy
9 time of flight
9 strinking energy
calculated using
o Mach dependent analytical
solutions
o splitted solutions for slant
range and gravity drop
o gravity corrected projectile
velocity

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 10 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Algorithm

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 11 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Algorithm

requirement fulfilled

range- and crosswind 9

arbitrary angle of site 9
muzzle velocity 9
coriolis force 9
magnus force 9
multiple ammunitions 9
height dependent air temperature 9
height dependent air pressure 9
user-defined targeting sights 9
time fuze capability 9
Chair for Measurement and Information Technology
- 12 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
Testing and Accuracy

9
9
9
9

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 13 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Accuracy
0,1

0
weapon: -0,1

M82A1 -0,2

-0,3

-0,4

ammunition: 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Error in Elevation in Clicks

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

M8 .50BMG 1,5
1
0,5
0
range: -0,5
-1
0 – 1500 m -1,5
-2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Error in TOF in ms
0,4
0,2
0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
-0,8
-1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Error in velocity in m/s

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 14 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Met Variations

weapon:
HK G3 0,8

0,6

ammunition: 0,4

M80 .308 error in clicks

0,2

range: -0,2
0 – 800 m
-0,4

-0,6

-0,8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
range in m

Standard 900mbar 1100mbar -20°C 30°C

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 15 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Model Limitations
1
weapon: 0
-1
HK GMG -2
-3
-4
-5

ammunition:
-6
-7
-8
40mm -9
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

range: elevation error in mils flattening R

0 – 2000 m 0,16
0,14
0,12
0,1
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 16 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Performance

algorithm usage in an
automated fire control system
1 ms
compute fire control solution
typically 0.1 to 1.2 ms
depending on options used

sensor readout
20 ms typically every 20 ms

re-align weapon
100 ms typically 100 to 1000 ms

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 17 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Performance

Comparing analytical solution with numerical

RK4 integration for a .50BMG rifle:

1000
900
numerical integration

800
times faster than

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
100 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500
range in m

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 18 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Implementations

DSP based stand alone

fire control computer
Optimized MISRA-C source code compiled
for TI DSP system

Windows demonstrator
front end
C# source code compiled for MS
Windows

Pocket PC
implementation
C# source code compiled for MS Pocket PC
2003

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 19 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Implementations

using spare
computational power

using spare
computational power

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 20 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Conclusions

An analytical solution for the differential equations of motion

was found
- thermodynamic state of the atmosphere was considered
- Multi region drag fitting
- uphill/downhill shooting
- wind / coriolis / spin deflection
An optimized algorithm was developed
- Optimized to minimized computation time
- Multi weapon / ammunition capabilities
- compact code size
- approved accuracy under nearly all conditions
Sample implementations were introduced
- handheld fire control for sniper teams
- in-sight automatic fire control for crew weapons

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 21 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Contact

Helmut-Schmidt-University
University of the Federal Armed Forces
Holstenhofweg 85
22043 Hamburg
Germany

Institute for Automation Engineering

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology
www.hsu-hh.de/mit

Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe

rothe@hsu-hh.de

Dipl.-Ing. Alexander Kuhrt

kuhrt@hsu-hh.de

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 22 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Fire Control Units
for Thermal Weapon Sights

H. Rothe, HSU
A.Kuhrt, HSU
R. Breiter, AIM
Chair for Measurement and Information Technology
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Agenda

1. Motivation
2. Mathematical model
3. DSP fire control computer
4. Results and experiences
5. RangIR applications
6. Conclusion

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-2-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Motivation

Past Present

fire control for

complex weapon
systems
fire control for light
supporting weapons

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-3-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Motivation

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-4-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
mathematical model

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-5-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 mathematical model

¾ Point mass model according to NATO STANAG

fire control 4355 Appendix G
algorithm
¾ atmospheric data extrapolation according
NATO STANAG 4044

¾ power drag law

¾ Gravity calculation according to WGS84

¾ Coriolis approximation according to McCoy

¾ crosswind considered by Didion‘s formula

¾ spin caused deflection according to NATO

STANAG 4355 Appendix G

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-6-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 mathematical model

¾ Equations of motion transferred to range

fire control regime
algorithm
¾ numerical solution using RK4 intergration
scheme for inital value problem (inner
loop)

¾ boundary value problem solved by secant

method (outer loop)

¾ vacuum solution used as inital value

estimator

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-7-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 DSP fire control computer

Sensor based input User supplied input

temperature
ƒ azimuth fire control ƒ
ƒ pressure
elevation
ƒ
ƒ cant
algorithm ƒ wind
ƒ range ƒ latitude

3D digital
magnetic weapon data output
compass ƒ time fuze settings
ƒ aiming point
Laser
range finder

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-8-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 DSP fire control computer
ballistic computer on
digital signal processing card
DMC+LRF+Ballistics ABM
Interface
DMC DC Ballistics Video
DC Calculator Distribution Weapon
Keypanel

LRF
CCE+VIP Video
Display
Fire
NUC Overlay
Control
System
Motherboard Interface
IR Module DC
DC
Main Main
Control Switch
DC
lens control DC
Key
Panel

Battery

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

-9-
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Results and experiences

Comparison of the fire control algorithm with ballistic tables

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 10 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Results and experiences

RangIR used as Fire Control Unit for the 40 mm GMG

6.8°

9.1°

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 11 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 RangeIR applications
WBZG* for the German IdZ+

* Infrared sighting mechanism

+ Infantrymen of the Future
Chair for Measurement and Information Technology
- 12 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 RangeIR applications

RangeIR
with integrated fire
control computer
on cal .50 BMG rifle

RangeIR
with integrated fire
control computer
on 5.56 mm light MG

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 13 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 RangeIR applications

5.56

5.56 range
range <
< 1500
1500 m
m

7.62 cal.
cal. 5.56
5.56 –
– 40
40 mm
mm

12.70 time
time fuze
fuze option
option

40.00

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 14 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Conclusions

Improved effectiveness of light supporting weapons

- high first hit probability
- very successful test firings
- part of German project IdZ (Infantrymen of the Future)

Follow-ons
- conformance to MISRA-C and DIN EN ISO 61508
- live firings to test firing uphill and downhill

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 15 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 Contact

Helmut-Schmidt-University
University of the Federal Armed Forces
Holstenhofweg 85
22043 Hamburg
Germany

Institute for Automation Engineering

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology
www.hsu-hh.de/mit

Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe

rothe@hsu-hh.de

Chair for Measurement and Information Technology

- 16 -
Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hendrik Rothe
 2008 International Infantry & Joint
Services Small Arms Systems
Symposium
System Analysis: Infantry
Studies and Simulations

Timothy Fargus, Michael Wilson, and Alexander Lee

System Analysis, ARDEC
Timothy.fargus@us.army.mil, michael.c.wilson@us.army.mil,
alexander.lee5@us.army.mil
5/21/08
 Overview

1. How does System Analysis Modeling

and Simulation improve the world of
infantry technology and doctrine?
2. Modeling and Simulation tools
3. Examples of analysis performed
4. M&S Outlook
 Improving Small Arms through
Modeling and Simulation
ƒ How does System Analysis Modeling and Simulation
improve the world of infantry technology and doctrine?
ƒ Allows us to QUANTIFY improvements in warfighter survivability,
lethality, and mission success by modifying specific parameters (e.g.
improved body armor, lighter weapon)
ƒ Can define optimal technology to accomplish goal
ƒ Comparison of existing technologies
ƒ Models and simulations show the effects of these capabilities and allow
us to compare these situations to the baseline
ƒ How does this undeveloped capability improve our forces’ lethality,
survivability, and ability to accomplish a given mission?
ƒ Which capability leads to the most improvement? Optimization.
ƒ Points towards the technology alternative that is closest to
goal.
 Improving Small Arms through
Modeling and Simulation

ƒ M&S is essential throughout the development of a

Small Arms technology!
ƒ Saves money
ƒ Allows controlled experiments to obtain statistical results
ƒ Results create direction for development of small arms
technology
 Improving Small Arms through
Modeling and Simulation

Real life test data

70

60

50

40

30
Series1
Series2
Analysis using Results and Support for R&D
20

10
Software tool(s) Conclusion Effort
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Soldier input Development of Small

Arms System
 Guidance

• Guidance from Subject Matter Experts (eg: Infantry School at Ft. Benning)
– What areas of improvement to study
– Measures of Effectiveness (MOE’s)
– Infantry scenarios
– Training Doctrine

• Working in coordination with other efforts to support Army Technology

Objectives

• Major Demands:
– Higher stopping power
– Better protection
– Lighter equipment
– Reduce exposure to fire

• Given this information, what input provides the system with the best
performance according to the MOE’s?
Tools: IWARS

IWARS (Infantry Warrior

Simulation) – AMSAA
approved model
•Force-on-Force Analysis
•High resolution
Dismounted Infantry
model
•Programmable Small
Infantry Engagements
•3-D representation and
run time viewer
•Output analysis tool
 Tools: CASRED and FBAR

Weapon Delivery
Weapon DeliveryAccuracy
Accuracy Target
Target
Characteristics
Characteristics - -Baseline
BaselineCase
Case
1 - -Improved
Formation
Formation
Improved RangeFinder
- -Fragmentation Range
FragmentationData Data
2
1 Finder - -55combatants
-Improved
-ImprovedMV
-Terminal velocity 2 combatants
-Terminal velocity MV - - Lazy 3
2 - -Improved LazyWW 3
- -Angle of Fall
Angle of Fall 2 ImprovedRange
Range&&MV
MV

FBAR Expected
Expected
CASRED Pk FBAR
CASRED PkContour
Contourfiles
files (Effectiveness) Fractional
Fractional
(Lethality)
(Lethality) (Effectiveness)
50,000 Monte Carlo Trials
50,000 Monte Carlo Trials Casualty
Casualty
Values
Values

Individual
IndividualSoldier
SoldierData
Data
-Winter
-WinterUniform
Uniform
-No
-No Armor / NoHelmet
Armor / No Helmet
-Standing Posture
-Standing Posture
- -5-min
5-minAssault
AssaultCriteria
Criteria
Allows examination of lethality of
theoretical weapon systems in
comparison to ones in use today.
Tools: One Saf Test Bed (OTB)

• Distributed force-
on-force simulation
– A macro
perspective allows
large force-on-force
engagements
– Shows what
technology can do
under operation
conditions
Infantry School Guided Study 1

• In baseline scenario,
breaching squad is exposed in
street waiting for door to be
breached
• Breach takes approximately 5
seconds

•With improved capability, the

breaching round is fired from
cover while the breaching
squad waits under cover
•Answers the question: How
much improvement in terms
of friendly force survivability
and breaching time can be
achieved using a breaching
round?
Infantry School Guided Study 2

•If potential insurgent can be

tagged, he can be pursued
more effectively.
•Allows the warfighter to
discriminate the target from
other civilians.

•Higher percentage of
correctly locating the target =
better tagging technology.
•Marginal improvements in
capture times and success
rate were recorded
•Results show most return
with 100% accuracy for
tagging.
OTB work
• Scenario: Blue forces are
engaged by red (insurgents)
at a roadblock

• Parameter focus is on the

Vertical and Horizontal Per-
Shot Error of M16.

• Statistics were obtained from

150 runs of the scenario with
30 runs of each parameter
modification

• Identified a specific
reduction in Vertical and
Horizontal Per-Shot error in
mils that led to the most the
most improvement
 Infantry Study Outlook

• Continue to support the development of

improvements (materiel or otherwise) to support the
warfighter.
• Help to optimize R&D efforts to bring the most benefit
to the warfighter.
• Continue to implement new tools to expand our effort.
 Aimpoint BR8

A Fire Control System

for Small Arms
 Reasons for missing the target

External influence
Weapon System (e.g. ballistical trajectory,
(e.g. dispersion) wind speed and direction,
temperature)

Time
Target
(e.g. duration for Phit (e.g. visibility, motion)
operation of weapon
system)

Operator influence
(e.g. shooting position,
estimation of distance to
target, breathing, aiming,
trigger control)
 Most important influence

● Operator
● Distance to target together with
ballistic trajectory
Mechanical solution — MPS3

● 4 MOA red dot

● 8 NVD settings and
8 daylight settings
● 70,000 hours of operation
(on setting 12 of 16)
on a single battery
● AA 1.5 V alkaline battery
(sight accepts voltage up to 5.0 V)
● Prepared for external picatinny rail
● MIL-STD 1913 MGMount includes 3-step ballistic
compensator (200,800 and 1200m)
 MPS3 and MGM
● MIL-STD 1913 MGMount includes 3-step ballistic compensator
(200,800 and 1200m – option customized)

200m
800m
1200m
In operative use with US Forces
Swedish FCS development
● Trials with AGL’s with different FCS’s,
and a market study have shown that
currently there is no simple, lightweight,
robust and affordable FCS available.
● Sweden has therefore decided to develop
a FCS with industry for use with
underslung grenade launchers, AGL’s
and 84mm Carl Gustaf recoilless rifles.
● A PDF study was done in 2002.
● A development contract was placed with
Aimpoint in 2005.
● Delivery of prototypes in 2007.
Aimpoint BR8 - Background
● Fully integrated Sight and Fire
Control System
● Suitable for a variety of weapons
where ballistical correction to
improve range performance and
PHit/PKill is essential
● Prepare system for additional
functionalities as technology matures
 Potential
● A very large number of grenade launchers with
very poor sight systems are in operative use
(M203, AG36, XM320….)

● A large number of Automatic Grenade Launchers

are in operative use (Mk 19, Mk47, GMG…..)

● A large number of Heavy Machine Guns are in

operative use (M2, M3……)

● A substantial number of Infantry Support

Weapons are in use (Carl Gustaf…..)
Crew served, in service

Mk47 with LVS

+ Can do everything anytime

- Expensive, poor batterylife
- Requires a lot of training
- Heavy
Crew served, in service

Mk47 with IS 2000

+ Easy to use
+/- Small for CS,Big for HH
- Moving parts
Hand held, almost in service

OICW with optronic sight

+ Can do everything, anytime
+ 24h system
- Expensive, poor batterylife
- Small FOV = short range
Hand held, almost in service

LEDs indicates correct elevation

Soldato futura, separate FCS

+ Low cost
-Eyes on sight, not on target
-No real night capability
-No possibility to correct fire
 Aimpoint BR8 – System
● 1x optical magnification
● 2MOA dot size
● Unlimited eye relief
● 1,2 kg
● 600 m measurement distance
● MIL-STD 1913 (Picatinny rail)
interface
● Rechargeable internal battery
● AA size back-up battery
Aimpoint BR8 – NATO Demo
Aimpoint BR8 – NATO Demo
Aimpoint BR8 – NATO Demo
Aimpoint BR8 – NATO
Demo
How it works V0*ToF…

1. Aim and measure range

2. Realign and shoot

Man-Machine Interface

Red dot
• Red dot Sight
zeroed for the
assault weapon
• Zeroed to the
lobe of the LRF
 Man-Machine Interface
Possibility to make a
new LRF measurement
F 150
Possibility to use
assault weapon

Blinking Red Dot

presented as aimpoint for
40mm UGL (superelevation)
Find your target
Aim at target – Measure Range
Blinking Red Dot
Aim at target - Superelevate
– Measure Range
FIRE!
Aimpoint BR8 – Project status
● Prototypes have been delivered to
FMV (Swedish Defence Materiel
Administration)
● Demonstrated for NATO in Toledo
2007-02-15: > 65% PHit at 1.2x1.2m
targets from 100 to 250m!
● Additional prototypes available in
late 2008
WHAT DOES THE USER GET?
• Superior situational awareness
WHAT DOES THE USER GET?
• Superior situational awareness
• Fastest target acquisition
• User friendly and reliable
• Dawn and dusk capability
• Compatible with all generations of NVG
• Long battery life
• Dramatic increase in PHit
• Increased lethality to the enemy and increased
survivability to own troops
• Reduced training time and costs
 Effects of Small Caliber Munitions
Through Intermediate Barriers
May 2008 Jeremy Lucid – US Army - ARDEC
 Introduction

• Can fielded ammunition meet the Needs

of the war fighter?
• How well do 5.56mm projectiles
penetrate automobiles?
• What are the penetration capabilities of
small caliber ammunition against
intermediate barriers?
 Typical Intermediate Barriers

Concrete Wall Insurgent Vehicle

This vehicle ran a checkpoint.

Could this have been prevented?
 Reality Î Model

Vehicle Checkpoint Lab Setup

 Phase I – Shot Matrix

Weapons Î M16 M4 M240

(5.56mm) (5.56mm) (7.62mm)
Ammunition
M193 (5.56mm) Intermediate Barriers
M855 (5.56mm)
• No Barrier (Baseline)
MK262 (5.56mm)
• Windshields
• Simulated Car Doors
M80 (7.62mm)
Phase I – Range Setup
 Phase I – Barrier Setup

90˚ Steel Plates 45˚ Steel Plates

 Phase I – Barrier Setup

90˚ Windshield 45˚ Windshield

Phase I – Data Extraction

Recovered
Projectile
Parameters
High Speed
Gelatin Damage Video
Parameters
 Phase I – EDR Analysis

• Effective Damage Rating (EDR) is an

abbreviated ranking system designed to
quickly estimate the terminal
performance of small caliber
ammunition against human threats.
• Methodology is defined in Technical
Report ARAET-TR-06013
 Phase I – EDR Analysis

• EDR values range from zero to one

– (1) One is Good
– (0) Zero is Bad
• EDR is an average of four rankings
– EDR-1 Rapid Effects/ Location of Damage
– EDR-2 Quantity of Potential Damage
– EDR-3 Adequate Penetration
– EDR-4 Potential Engagements of Vital Organs
 Phase I – EDR Analysis

EDR-1 Rapid Effects/ Location of Damage 25%

EDR-2 Quantity of Potential Damage
Efficiency Function for Location of the Fracture Profile
Maximum Diameter
25%
Volume Efficiency Function
1.00

0.90 1.000

0.80
Location 0.900

0.70 of Max 0.800

0.60 Fracture
FPMDL rank

0.700

0.50

Volume Rating
0.600
0.40
0.500
0.30
0.400
0.20
0.300 Area of
0.10
0.200 Static
Cavity
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0.100
Location to Max Crack Diam (Max-Yaw ) inches
0.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Volum e of Wound Proflie (inches^3)

Static
Block
 Phase I – EDR Analysis

EDR-3 Adequate Penetration 25% EDR-4 Potential Engagements of Vital Organs 25%
1.000
1.00
0.900

Max
0.90
0.800

Penetration
0.80
0.700

Depth
0.70
0.600
0.60
PD Rank

Frag Rank
0.500
0.50
0.400
0.40
0.300
0.30 % Wt of Largest
0.200
0.20 Frag vs. Nominal
0.100
0.10 Projectile Wt
0.000
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Penetration Depth (inches)
% w t of largest frag vs. nom inal w t

Static
Block
Bullet
Fragments
 Phase I – Results

Average XY Z (Range: 2 0 m - 7 0 m)
95% CI for the Mean

45° 45°
Car Door Car Door No Barrier Windshield Windshield

Amm o
 Phase II - Overview

• Evaluate terminal effects of 1,600 rounds of

5.56mm & 7.62mm ammunition through:
– Automobile windshields at steeper angles
– Simulated truck doors w/ increased shell thickness
– Concrete blocks
• Establish quick go/no gages for intermediate
barriers to assist in assessing the threat
 Phase II - Test Setup

Weapons:
• M4
• M16
• M249
• M24
• M240
Ranges:
• 75m
• 200m

USAMU – Ft Benning
 Phase II - Test Setup

5.56mm Ammo 7.62mm Ammo

M193 M118LR
M855 M80
MK262
M995
Automobile Windshields
Concrete & Steel

Concrete Î

Í Steel
 Data Collection

Witness Sheet
.020” Al

Front Barrier Rear Barrier

 Penetration Assessment

Barrier 1 Witness
Partial Plate 1
Penetration

Full Witness
Penetration Plate 2
Barrier 2
 Penetration Assessment of
Munitions (PAM) Charts

RND XYZ - XX grain

Windshield Heavy Truck Door Concrete Façade

Weapon/ Range Worst Case Head On Angle 4" Hollow 4" Filled
Gun 1 - Range 1 1 1 2 1 2
Gun 1 - Range 2 1 2 2 2 3
Gun 2 - Range 1 1 2 2 1 2
Gun 2 - Range 2 1 2 2 1 3

Full Penetration - Minimum # of Shots Required to Penetrate Barrier

1
( 80% of the rounds fired were able to penetrate the barrier on the first shot)

2 Partial Penetration - Multiple Shots Required To Penetrate Barrier

No Penetration - Maximum # of Shots Required To Penetrate Barrier

3
( 80% of the rounds fired were unable to penetrate the barrier on the first shot)
 Conclusion

• Provided a quick assessment of

currently fielded ammunition
• Determined effectiveness through light
intermediate barriers found in field
• Compiled all data for future testing and
modeling efforts
• Publishing technical report
 Contact Information

Questions?

Chris Gandy – chris.gandy@us.army.mil

Jeremy Lucid – jeremy.lucid@us.army.mil
 National Defense Industrial Association Small Arms Symposium May 2008

.50 cal Short Range Training Ammunition

Author: John MacDougall

john.macdougall@can.gd-ots.com

© 2007 General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems-Canada inc.

 GD-OTS Canada New .50 cal SRTA

 Project Objectives

 Current Training Ammunition Products/Projects

 Concept

 Performance
– Simulations
– Test Data

 Applications/Benefits
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (2)

 Summary
 Project Objectives

 To develop an improve .50 cal SRTA

– Eliminate need for weapon adaptors/ancillary equipment
– Increase effective ballistic match range
– Increase functioning reliability
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (3)
 Current Product
.50 cal Limited Range Training Ammunition

 Non-toxic, 45g bullet with rear fins to limit range

 Functions in M2HB and QCB machineguns

 Ball and tracer versions in production since 2001

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (4)
 Current Product
.50 cal LRTA

 Accuracy of 30 cm at 550 m range

 Ballistic match up to 800 m with M33

 LRTA = Max range of 3,500 m or 50% reduction vs. M33

 Now in service in 3 NATO armies

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (5)
 Current Product
SHORT STOP® 7.62 mm SRTA

 7.62 mm SHORT STOP® training round

 Available in 4B/1T configuration

 Now in Production for DoD as M973 & M974

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (6)
 Current R&D Project
SHORT STOP® 5.56 mm SRTA

 Ballistic match to 100 m with max range of 600 m

 Under final development with ARDEC

 Phase III recently awarded

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (7)
 .50 cal SRTA Concept

 The .50 cal SRTA Cartridge is:

– Our newest Short Range Training Solution
– An Internally-funded GD-OTS Canada R&D program
– Now in test and evaluation phase
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (8)
 .50 cal SRTA Concept

 SRTA performance objectives:

– No modifications of M2 machinegun
– Improved ballistic match with M33/M17
– Reliable functioning from –20 to +50ºC
– Non-toxic components
– Max range of 700 m
– Frangible projectile
ƒ No splashback beyond 25 m
– Improved performance vs. M858
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (9)
 .50 cal SRTA Concept

 The .50 cal SRTA has:

– A monolithic, frangible projectile
– Forward fins with controlled spin technology to limit range
ƒ Fins introduce a "reverse" spin/drag, opposing rotation
ƒ The projectile quickly becomes dynamically unstable
– Very good accuracy due to consistent ballistic performance
ƒ Yaw on target is trade-off for greatly reduced max range
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (10)
 .50 cal SRTA Performance

 SRTA performance Objectives/Results

– Objective: ballistic match with ball round at 150 m
ƒ Result: > 200 m match range possible
– Objective: Drop of < 15 cm compared to ball at 150 m
ƒ Results obtained: < 5 cm
– Objective: Mean radius Dispersion < 30 cm at 150 m
ƒ Results obtained: < 15 cm
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (11)
 .50cal SRTA vs. M858 Comparison

 .50 cal M858 Ball and Tracer M860 training rounds

– Type classified in 1983 and introduced in the US DoD
– Requires use of M3 Recoil Amplifier Barrel Assembly
– Muzzle velocity is approx. 4,000 feet per second.
– Plastic projectile mass is approx. 3.3 grams
– Ballistically comparable to M17/M33 out to 150 meters
– Maximum range of 700 meters
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (12)
 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Simulation

 Comparison of ballistic drop with M858 at 150 m

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (13)
 .50cal SRTA Ballistic Simulation

 Comparison of ballistic Drop vs. M33 Ball round

Vertical Drop .50cal SRTA Vs .50cal M33

.50cal SRTA
2.0 .50cal M33

1.5
Vert. Drop (m)

1.0

0.5

0.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (14)

Horizontal distance (m)

 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Simulation

 Velocity decay vs. M33 simulation with PRODAS

900

800

700

600
VELOCITY (m/sec)

500

400
M33

300

200
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (15)

SRTA

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

TIME (sec)
 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Testing

5m 68m 185m
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (16)

Shadowgraph images from DREV spark range

 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Testing

 Typical Drag vs. Velocity curve measured

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (17)
 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Simulation

 Maximum range simulation with PRODAS

– Less than 700 m

MAXIMUM RANGE (ELEVATION: 22.5°)

1100

1000

900

800

700
.50CAL SRTA
600
.50CAL M33
Z (m)

500

400

300

200
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (18)

100

-100
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
X (m)
Prodas2000 V3 Arrow Tech Associates
juil 20,2007
 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Testing

 Ballistic match and accuracy tests at 150 m, June 2007

– Reference is M33
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (19)
 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Testing

 Frangibility testing at 50 m range

– No penetration of a 10 mm armor plate
– No splashback at 25 m after 30 shots fired
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (20)
 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Testing

 Minimal barrel fouling in M2 barrel observed

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (21)
 .50 cal SRTA Applications/Benefits

 Training Applications/Benefits
– Maritime training with limited surface danger-zones
– Used on reduced safety template ranges
– Training with reactive steel targets
– Fired on “Lead-free” ranges
– Enables engagements with targets on 2nd and 3rd floor
windows or on overpasses
– Reduces friction created by units competing for range time
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (22)
 .50 cal SRTA Applications/Benefits

 March-April 2008 edition of Infantry Magazine

– Article entitled: “SRTA allows 360° Training Capability”
– At Fort Riley, Kansas: “SRTA is 1st Division's means to
produce one awesome, realistic and simple training event.”
– “Only SRTA can provide free-thinking using fire and maneuver
in a 360° training environment because of the SDZ”
– “SRTA allows trainers to condense the battlespace”
– “SRTA ranges can be created from maneuver spaces”
– Because of the increases in land resources the training tempo
has increased.”
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (23)

– “Without SRTA, the 1st Division and the U.S. Army transition
team trainers would face significant and difficult obstacles”
 Applications/Benefits

FP

5.56mm CQT®
& SP 7.62mm Ball
40mm DragonFly™
MSR
Convoy
5.56mm,
7.62mm &
12.7mm
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (24)

SRTA
 .50cal SRTA Summary

 SUMMARY
– The new .50 cal SRTA lead free, frangible concept represents
an advance in small arms training technology
– The new .50 cal SRTA is currently an in-house R&D project
– It optimizes the use of range training resources due to its
significantly reduced danger-template
– This new product will further enhance the family of:
Short Range Training Solutions offered by GD-OTS Canada
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (25)
 Contact Information

John MacDougall:
Business Development Manager

Telephone: 1-514-582-6226

E-mail: john.macdougall@can.gd-ots.com
08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (26)
 .50 cal SRTA Ballistic Testing

 Weapon cycling video

08MK0512_JM NDIA Presentation.ppt (27)
 Unclassified
NDIA
INTERNATIONAL INFANTRY &
JOINT SERVICES SMALL ARMS
SYSTEMS SYMPOSIUM

DALLAS, TX
Colonel Bob Mattes
Director
Comparative Testing Office (CTO)
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense
(Advanced System & Concepts)

Email: bob.mattes@osd.mil
Website: www.acq.osd.mil/cto
Phone: (703) 602-3740

1
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
“The Environment”

Hon. Robert Gates

Secretary of Defense
Deputy Secretary of Defense Hon. Gordon England

Under Secretary of Defense Hon. John Young

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)

Director, Defense Research & Engineering Mr. Alan Shaffer

Principal Deputy

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

Mr. John Kubricky
(Advanced Systems & Concepts)

Comparative
Testing Col Bob Mattes
Office (CTO)

Defense Acquisition Challenge (DAC) &

Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT)

2
 CTO Priorities

• Warfighter Issues
– Improved Operations
9 Effectiveness (lethality, accuracy, endurance)
9 Survivability (protection, agility, stealth, medical)
9 Force Protection (defensive systems, detection, armoring, chemical - biological defense)
9 Sustainability (lighter / combined equipment, longer missions, better batteries)
– Direct Warfighter Support
9 Logistics (supply chain management in the field, equipment reliability)
9 Teaming (e.g., Network & Info Centric Operations at the tactical or operational level)
9 Surveillance, tagging and tracking (blue and hostile forces tracking, friendly
identification)
– Warfighter Employment
9 Planning capabilities (large unit employment)
9 Coordinating capabilities (Network / Info Centric Operations at the strategic level)
9 Transport capabilities (getting to and from the fight)
9 Operational readiness (equipment availability, maintainability, training)

• Other National Priorities, as provided in Defense Planning

Guidance (DPG)
3
 FCT Performance Metrics

The Past
581 Projects Started, 507 Completed
28 Years:
271 Projects Met Service Requirements
193 Projects - Procurements Worth over $8.5B

• Participation of 28 Allied & Friendly Countries

• OSD Investment: $1.1B (Constant FY08 $$)
¾ Estimated RDT&E Cost Avoidance: $7 Billion

• Accelerated Fielding Averaging 5-7 years

• Procurement Rate over 80% in the Past 7 Years

Bilateral Benefits: Vendor Teaming

with U.S. Industry in 33 States
UNCLASSIFIED 4
 DAC Performance Metrics

Key Program Success Metrics:

Since the program inception in FY2003, OSD has initiated 105 projects;
• 38 projects have been completed to date,
• 28 met Service or Agency testing requirements,
• 23 have transitioned to PoR (over 80% transition to procurement rate)
• 4 projects were terminated due to inability to satisfy testing or
Program of Record priorities.

Results:
66 projects funded at $91M
23 projects have procurements that total $320 million,
• 16 projects have yielded capabilities currently deployed to our
warfighters in Iraq, Afghanistan, or at U.S. training facilities.
• Return on Investment ~ 9:1,
• Participation from 85 companies, 36 states.

5
 CTO & Warfighting Operations

SOF (Special Operations Forces) Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR)

AT-4 CS
Close Quarter Battle Pistol

Muzzle Break Sound Suppressor

for MK48 and M240

20mm Anti-Material Rifle AT-4CS (Confined Space) Enhanced Blast Tandem Warhead

Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel

Weapon System - MAAWS

Advanced Demolition Weapons

30mm Programmable Air Burst Munitions High Rate-of-Fire .50 Caliber Machine Gun
 Continued

40mm Enhanced Grenade

Launcher Module for M4 Carbine 7.62mm Lightweight Machine Guns and Semi-Rigid Ammo Container

Joint Service Combat Shotgun

Joint Ranger Anti-armor, Anti-personnel

Weapon System Ammunition Upgrades,
Phase I

5.56mm Lightweight Machine Gun

7
 Ammunition

20mm Replacement Round 40mm High Explosive Dual Purpose

Lightweight Hand Grenade
40mm Low Velocity,
High Explosive Dual Purpose

Advanced Lightweight Grenade

Launcher Ammunition (ALGL-A)

30mm APFSDS-Tracer

40mm Dud-Reducing M430A1E1 Cartridge

40 mm Practice Grenade 9mm Reduced Environmental
Hazard Ammunition (REHA)
8
 Training Devices / Non-Lethal Systems
Special Effects Small Arms Marking System
for M249 SAW

M4/M16 Training Bolt

40mm Tactical Marking,

Day/Night Training Cartridges

Individual Serviceman Non-Lethal System

7.62 mm Short Range Training Ammo

21mm Trainer for M72 Light Anti-Tank Weapon

Dismounted Infantry Virtual Simulation for

MK47 Crew-Served Weapon Trainer Military Operations in Urban Terrain
9
 When a Vendor Walks Through My Door …

… I don’t want to hear what they are selling

… I want to hear what problem they are
solving for the warfighter
… Some indication that they…
- Have done their homework
- Understand the problem
… And only then how they propose to
solve it.
10
 DAC & FCT Key Points of Contact

OSD Col Bob Mattes bob.mattes@osd.mil 703.601.3790

Dan Cundiff dan.cundiff@osd.mil 703.602.3738
Paul Frichtl paul.frichtl.ctr@osd.mil 703.602.3739
Bob Thompson robert.thompson.ctr@osd.mil 703.602.3743
Army Al Trawinski allan.trawinski@us.army.mil 703.866.0999

AF (DAC) Lt Col Rob robert.skelton@ 703.588.6401

Skelton pentagon.af.mil

AF (FCT) Lizz Robison kathleen.robison@ 703.588.8946

pentagon.af.mil

SOCOM Ron Schwartz schwarr@socom.mil 813.826.1035

Jim Santa-Lucia santaj@socom.mil 813.826.0052
Navy / Arthur Webb arthur.webb@navy.mil 703.696.0340
USMC Shawn Prablek prableksj@ mcsc.usmc.mil 703.432.4296

11
7.62mm, Limited Range Lethal Round For USCG
Informational Brief for NDIA 2008
20 May 2008
 Project Overview & Objectives

• Overview
o JSSAP funded effort initiated in FY04 to
design, develop, and demonstrate a 7.62mm
Limited Range Lethal Round (L2R2) that meets
the unique needs and requirements of the US
Coast Guard for use in harbor security
applications.

• Objectives
o Capable of engaging and defeating a variety of
seagoing vessels and personnel targets
o Reduced maximum range to minimize collateral
damage to the areas surrounding the locations
where the round will be employed.
o Success of program may lead to future “TC”,
production & fielding.
 Customer Requirements

M80
• Defeat 1/4 inch of mild steel at 200 meters when fired
from a M240B machine gun, at up to a 45-degree angle

• Match trajectory of M80 out to at least 400 meters.

L2R2
• Capable of defeating soft target out to at least 400 meters.

• Maximum range of 2000 Meters (1500 Meters desirable)

• Capable of being fired from an M14 rifle and M240 Machine

Gun with no weapon adapters / modifications
 Summary from 2006

• 3-piece projectile design satisfied

penetration requirements
• Radar testing necessary to verify
maximum range
• Additional modifications required to
improve Dispersion
 Radar Testing

• Radar Testing was

performed at the
Aberdeen Test Center
• Tested 6 Configurations
– Long Fin
• Low Propellant Charge
• High Propellant Charge
– Medium Fin
• Low Propellant Charge
• High Propellant Charge
– Short Fin
• Low Propellant Charge
• High Propellant Charge
 Radar Test Results/L2R2
Safety Fan

Note, Circle represents test Safety Fan

Preliminary
results for all configurations
1400
max range
qe=15deg

1200

qe=1 deg
1000

qe=0.5deg
800
Range, m

600

400

200

0
-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Deflection, m
 M80 and L2R2 Range Safety Fan Comparison

Safety Fan
Preliminary

4500
M80 range safety fan is constructed from DA PAM 385-63

4000

M80

3500

3000
Ricochet Area for M80

2500
Range, m

2000 max range qe=15deg

qe=1 deg
qe=0.5deg
1500

1000

500

0
-2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Deflection, m
 Long Fin Dispersion Testing

L2R2 and M80 @ 200m

• Fired three five round groups
• Average Circular Error Probable
(CEP)
– 1in for M80
– 9in for 3-Piece Rear Fin Design
• Unacceptable dispersion
• Redesign 3-piece projectile and
fabricate a new alternative
 Technical Description of New Designs

• Three new designs have been investigated:

– Three (3) piece design:
• Aluminum fins with small stem at the center
• Copper jacket
• Tungsten penetrator

– Three (3) piece design:

• Aluminum fins with a large stem at the center
• Copper jacket
• Tungsten penetrator

– One (1) piece design:

• Brass Banded Solid with sections removed
from the ogive (forward facing fins)

• Standard 7.62mm, M80 ball cartridge case,

primer, and propellant

• Limited testing demonstrated reliable weapon

function and ability to meet desired muzzle
velocity
 New Designs Testing

• Tested dispersion and target

penetration
– Banded Brass Projectile without fins
penetrated target, low dispersion
– Both 3-Piece design penetrated target, no
improvement in dispersion
– Banded Brass Projectile with fins didn’t
impact target.
 Rear Finned Projectile

High-speed video of rear finned 3-Piece projectile with center stem @

15ft from muzzle
 Forward Facing Finned Projectile

High-speed video of Banded Solid with Forward Facing Fins @ 15ft

from muzzle
 Dispersion Testing Results
ATF Test
200 meters Range
20
M80, 3 Shots
USCG-0.10 Base Fin, 8 Shots
USCG-0.15 Base Fine, 8 Shots
15

10

5
Vertical Spread, inch

0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

-5

-10

-15

-20
Horizontal Spread, inch
 Testing Conclusions

• Rear Finned Projectile

– Redesigned twice to improve dispersion
– Minimal improvements in dispersion
– Design abandoned due to possible tracer
requirement
• Forward Facing Finned Projectile
– Poor stability, didn’t impact target
– Promising concept, cg must be shifted
closer to nose
– Design can accommodate tracer mix
 Corrective Actions

• Needed more stable baseline design

• Chose the Standard 7.62 NATO Design, M80
• Designed a solid brass projectile with dimensions equivalent to M80
• Machined forward facing fins
• Modeling showed that it would meet max range requirement
 New Designs Testing

Tested dispersion and target penetration (0.25”

mild steel) for the designs displayed below.
 Forward Facing Finned Projectile

High-speed video of Brass M80 with Forward Facing Fins @ 15ft

from muzzle
Test Results, Dispersion @ 200m
Test Results, Penetration
 Summary & Future Tasks

• Brass M80 with forward facing fins

– Low dispersion
– Poor target penetration
• Future Tasks
– Model and Simulate projectile target penetration
– Perform Spark Range Testing
– Redesign for penetration and improved dispersion
– Dispersion test at 400m
– Radar test for max range
Questions?
Contact Info
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal Capabilities

Update Brief to NDIA

Liliana McShea
Chairman Topical Group 3

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 1
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

NORTH
MILITARY NORTHATLANTIC
ATLANTICCOUNCIL
COUNCIL
MILITARY
COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE

NATO
Conference Senior NATO
NATO Committee
for Standardisation
Conferenceof
ofNational
National Logisticians’
Consultation
Armaments Command and
ArmamentsDirectors
Directors(CNAD)
(CNAD) Conference
Control Board

National Armaments Joint Capability Implementation

Directors Representatives Group (JCIG)

CNAD Management Plan

NATO Army NATO Air Force NATO Naval

Armaments Group Armaments Group Armaments Group Life Cycle
Management Group

R&T Coordination
Group (RTCG) NATO Industrial Projects
Ammunition
Advisory Group - Alliance Ground Surveillance
Safety Group
- ALTBMD
Research and - Missile Defence Project Group
Technology Group of National
Organization Directors on
Codification
NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 2
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

AC/225-NAAG

NAAG Progress Audit Team (NPAT)

Land Armaments Management Plan (LAMP)

POW Evaluation Report (POWER) – levels 2&3

LCG/1 LCG/2 LCG/3 LCG/4

JCG
Dismounted Combat Fire Ground-based
CBRN Defence
Soldier Manoeuvre Support Air Defence

Soldier System Indirect Fire CBRN ACAR(*)

Analysis Group ACAR(*) Team Team
(SCAG)

LCG/7 LCG/8
LCG/6 TG/3
Battlefield Mobility Tactical Air
Battlefield Non Lethal
& Engineer Mobility
STANOC-EW Capabilities
Support & Support

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 3
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

• The NAAG and its sister Armaments Groups for the Navy
and Air Force make up the Council of National Armaments
Directors (CNAD) reporting to the North Atlantic Council.
• The NAAG is made up of senior national military planners,
with the Chairman position rotating among member
nations
• The work of the NAAG is accomplished by nine direct
reporting groups and a Topical Group
• TG/3 is a temporary, level 2 group with a mandate of 5
years. It is open to all NATO members and Partners for
Peace nations. TG/3 normally meets twice a year

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 4
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

Area of Responsibility:
• The NATO Army Armaments Group (NAAG) focal
point for all Non-Lethal (NL) activities…
Mission:
• …strive to significantly improve NATO and
Partnership for Peace (PfP) NLC across the full
spectrum of operational requirements, mission
areas, and operating environments in order to
achieve a better understanding and interoperability
within NATO.

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 5
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

NATO TG 3 – NLC TASKS

• Follow on the directions of the NAAG QRT on NLC.

• Maintain and expand the current NAAG NLC catalogue.

• Proceed with a capability gaps analysis on NATO NLC in the

short, medium and long term; formulate recommendations to
the appropriate NATO body, as required.

• Support CNAD DAT program of work, if applicable.

• Coordinate all NLC efforts within the NAAG.

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 6
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

NATO TG 3 – NLC TASKS (Cont.)

• Formulate STANAGs for the standardization of NLC within
NATO.

• Act as the NAAG liaison with other NATO NLC related

organisations as required.

• Maintain an overwatch on MOUT activities within the

NAAG and formulate recommendations as required.

• Continue monitoring the work conducted under Five

Powers Working Group (5PWG) on MOUT and act as a
conduit for this group’s products to NAAG.

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 7
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

TG/3 Program of Work (POW)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Lead 3* 4 1* 2 3* 4 1* 2 3* 4 1* 2 3* 4 1*
MOUT Effort Reduction
"MOUT Overwatch"

Identification of Relevant NATO Bodies

Liaison with Relevant NATO Organizations

Review of Past and Current NLW Efforts and

Validation of QRT Results
NLC Definition(s) Articulation

Identify/Modify NLC-based Tasks List

Deduct desired Effects from Task List
Identify NLC Requirements
Identify List of Required Capabilities
Identify Gaps
Prioritize Gaps
DOTMLPFI Analysis
DOTLPFI
M
Assess the impact of New NLC
Effort Coordination with ACT

Develop Plan (with RTO / NIAG) to resolve gaps.

Standardization Opportunities
Support [potential] DAT on NL Initiative

MOE / MOP Development

Collaborative Effort with RTO (SAS-060 Results)

Expand and Maintain NLC Catalogue

Review of TG3 Program of Work & Terms of

Reference
National Information Exchange
NLC Relevant Demonstrations
Doctrine and Concept
Lessons Learned
Projects / Activites

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 8
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

NATO NLC PROPOSED DEFINITION

A capability, designed and expected to achieve a

relevant military effect on a person, equipment or
infrastructure yet with a significantly lower risk of
human fatality or permanent injury than could be
expected from conducting the same task through
the use of conventional systems (i.e. those
designed with a high probability of lethality).

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 9
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

WHAT IS NOT A NLC

• Any other capability not designed specifically for the

purpose of minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to
personnel, and undesired damage to the environment…

For example:
• Information & Psychological operations;
• The use of smoke and illumination on the battlefield;
• Electronic Warfare, including jamming and/or counter-IED
protection;
• Systems designed to minimize collateral damage;
• The use of lethal assets in a non-lethal manner; and
• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and other equipment
designed to enhance survivability.

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 10
 NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

Way Ahead

• Identified NL mission tasks for coalition forces

• Establish Teams of Experts/Sub-Groups to sub-divide the
tasks.
• Establish a reliable website to share information with other
NATO and Partners for Peace entities.
• Establish a reliable mechanism within the NAAG in order
to pull/push NLC requirements.
• Establish a Point of Contact with NATO Lessons Learned.
• Next meeting schedule at NATO HQ 8-9 September 2008.

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 11
NATO Army Armaments
Group (NAAG) Topical Group 3 on Non Lethal
21 May 2008
Capabilities

QUESTIONS ?

NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED 12
 Program Objectives

In support of PM-MAS and JSSAP development programs:

•Determine the viability of using FEA as a tool for

predicting small arms ammunition terminal ballistic
performance

•Evaluate the effectiveness of various small arms

projectiles, after they have penetrated through metal
barriers

•Determine the viability of using FEA as developmental

tool for small arms ammunition and weapon system
development

1
 “Lethality”

Pro
b ab
“Lethality” ili tie
s

it ation
c
Target Reaction to Hit apa
I nc

Bullet-Target Interaction
Project Focus •Location of hit
•Target Composition
•Projectile Ballistics

Probability of Hit s
c t ion
ht A
rfig
Wa t ion
s
tA c
ge
Tar 2
 Approach

Create Model
• Diverse projectile configurations and calibers evaluated
• M855, MK262, M995, M855/.265, M855/.308, M855/Pb, M855/Al,
M855/ WC
• Targets: 1/8” Mild Steel, 3/8” Mild Steel, ¼” RHA. ¼” RHA 30 ob
• Material research

Simulate effectiveness
1. Use FEA to Simulate ballistic impact with barrier material
2. Use CFD* as well as analytical means to determine post-barrier
projectile drag mechanics
3. Use FEA* as well as analytical/empirical models to simulate the
impact of the post-barrier projectile into ballistic gelatin
4. Use physical/empirical models quantify the potential
effectiveness against a human target

Evaluate
• Briefly compare effectiveness variations against user needs 3

* On going efforts
 Technical Background

1) LS-Dyna impact model generates mass, velocity, shape and orientation of

projectiles after passing through a barrier.

2) LS-Dyna output put into Sturdivan-Bexan equations to predict subsequent yaw

history in 20% gelatin. Simultaneously, LS-Dyna output with Surdivan-Bexan yaw
history placed into Peters equation to predict velocity decay in gelatin

⎡⎢ ⎛ ρ⋅ CD⋅ A ⎞ ⎤⎥
⎜ − ⋅ ⎟
2 ⎢⎡ ⎛ a⋅ U ⎞ ⎤⎥ ⋅ e⎝
2 x 2
⎢
V( x) := Vo ⋅ 1 +
m ⎠ − ⎛ a⋅ U ⎞ ⎥
⎢⎢ ⎜V ⎟⎥ ⎜V ⎟⎥
⎣⎣ ⎝ o⎠⎦ ⎝ o⎠⎦

3) Velocity decay information, as well as retained mass from LS-Dyna used

to feed EKE equation, providing the final estimation of effectiveness in the
human Thorax.
m
∑
4
EKE = Pi(ΔV ) 2
2 x
 Damaging Soft Targets

Post Barrier Damage, as a result of projectile mass

Energy Deposit rate
and penetration depth

te
Ra
w D
Slo od P
Go

te
t Ra
s D
Fa or P
Po

te
t Ra D
s
Fa od P t E K
E Remember…“Ballistics vs. Logistics” 5
Go rges
La
 Candidates for Study

(.223 cal)

6
 Baseline

Residual Velocites for M855 Penetrating 10-gage Mild Steel Plate M855 vs. 3/8" A36 Steel

3000
3000

2500 2500

Residual Velocity (ft/sec)

Residual Velocity (fps)

2000 2000

1500 1500

1000 1000

500 500

0
0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 2300 2500 2700 2900 3100 3300

Im pact Velocity (fps) Im pact Velocity (ft/sec)

ARL Test Data LS-Dyna Data ARL Test Data LS-Dyna Data

M995 tip
erosion
M855 penetrator
deformation Plug from
MK262
7
 M855-PB M855

MK262

M855-AL
M855-265

M995

M855-WC
M855-308
Simulations: 1/8” mild steel, 2500fps

8
 M855

M855-WC

M855-265

MK262

M995
M855-308
Simulations ¼” RHA, 3000fps

9
 Retained Mass

Penetrating Mass for Simulated Projectiles Penetrating

10-gage Mild Steel Plate

90.0

80.0

70.0
Retained Mass (grains)

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Im pact Velocity (fps)

M855 MK262 M995

Recall…
1
Mv3/2 F = C D ρV 2 A 10
2
 Velocity Increase?

”
er
Velocity Differnential, front to rear in projectile

m
m
ha
38000
id
lu
“f

36000
“soft” bullet
34000

32000

Velo city (in ch /sec)

30000

28000

26000

24000

22000 “hard” bullet

20000
0.00E+00 1.00E-05 2.00E-05 3.00E-05 4.00E-05 5.00E-05 6.00E-05 7.00E-05 8.00E-05
Time (sec)

M995 Carbide, Front M995 Carbide, Rear MK262 Lead, Front MK262 Lead, Rear
11
 Compiling the Simulated Results

Residual Velocities of Simulated Impacts

Residual Velocities of Simulated Impacts
(0.375" A36 steel, BHN 155, 0 Degree Obliquity)
1/8" Mild Steel "NATO Plate"
3200 3000
3000 2800
2800 2600
2600 2400
2400 2200

Residual Velociy (fps)

Residual Velociy (fps)

2200 2000
2000
1800
1800
1600
1600
1400
1400
1200 1200
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800
3100 2900 2700 2500 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500
Impact Velocity (fps) Impact Velocity (fps)
M855, Nominal M855, Scaled to 0.265 M855, Nominal M855/.265 cal M855/.308 cal
M855, Scaled to 0.308 M855, Aluminum Penetrator
M855, Lead Penetrator M855, Tungsten Penetrator M855-WC-pen MK262 M995
MK262 M995 M885/Al M855/Pb

Heavier projectiles have lower V50’s and carry more mass through lighter barriers

Harder targets to defeat will push user towards AP type ammo

12
 Evaluating the Results by RANGE

Effectiveness at a given RANGE is

more useful to the user… M995 penetrates when others cant…
…but how effective is it after the barrier?

Effectiveness after
Effectivenss 1/8”
1/8" mild steelMild Steel
Effectiveness after
Effectivenss 3/8”
3/8" mild steel Mild Steel

Zero to 300m Zero to 300m

2000 600

1800 300m M16

500
1600

1400 400

EKE (joules)
EKE (joules)

1200
300
1000 0m M16
200
800

600 100
400
300m M16
0
200

Al
5

C
Pb

62
5

5
26

30
85

99
W
5/

K2
0

5/
85
5/

5/

5/
M

M
85

M
85

85

85
M

M
M855 M855/265 M855/308 M855/Al M855/Pb M855/WC MK262 M995

M
0m 100m 300m 0m 100m 300m

M855 better thru

plate than on bare
at close range? M16/M855 EKE, no barrier 14
 Trade Offs
Weight
Requirement Effectivenss vs. Weight, against 1/8" mild steel

20.0

18.0
Wh
to t a t r a n
16.0

14.0

he g
wa e i s
12.0

10.0
rfig mo
hte st i 8.0

r? mp 6.0

ort 4.0

ant 2.0

0.0
M855 M855/265 M855/308 M855/Al M855/Pb M855/WC MK262

og i tics
M995
s
0m 100m 300m
aga inst l
tics
hing ballis
Effe ctiv enss 1/8" mild ste el

W ei g
2000

1800

1600

1400

EKE (joules)
1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
M855 M855/265 M855/308 M855/Al M855/Pb M855/WC MK262 M995

0m 100m 300m
15
 Summary

Qualitative look at top 4 candidates against each target

1/8” Mild Steel 3/8” Mild Steel ¼” RHA

M855-.308 caliber M995 M995

M855-.265 caliber M855-WC-pen M855-WC-pen

M855-WC-pen M855-308.cal M855-.265cal

M855 M855-.265 cal M855

MK262, M855-AL, M855-PB all significantly lower overall

Requirements + Performance + Trade-space + logistics = Choice

16
 Conclusions

•Simulations correlate well, in most cases, to test data

•Limit velocities for M855 against RHA, and Mils Steel matched ARL test data
•All lead bullets may require fine-tune
•¼” RHA material properties may require fine-tune

•Simulations can be used to improve the projectile development process

•Simulations show sensitivity to geometric and material property changes
•Simulations enable comparative, scientific analysis
•100% predictive capability still difficult without calibrating test data
•Simulations reduce product development time
•Simulations improve product quality

•Putting a harder penetrator in the M855 is a good overall improvement

•Intermediate caliber can balance range with penetration capability effectively

17
 Mission Payload Module
Non-Lethal Weapons System
briefing for

National Defense Industrial Association

Small Arms Systems Symposium
19-22 May 2008
Victor Dodson
Team Leader
Non-Lethal/Force Protection
Marine Corps Systems Command

1
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
 What is needed?

Operational Forces Requested a Non-Lethal System That:

• Provides a Counter-Personnel Capability That Complements Lethal Weapon

Applications and Effects
• Provides Marines With a High Volume of Fire, Extended Range and Incapacitation Capability
• Reduces or Avoids Risk of Permanent Injury to Personnel and Unintended Destruction of
Equipment or Infrastructure

2
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
 What is MPM-NLWS?

MPM-NLWS is a new Weapon System That Launches Non-Lethal

Payloads to Greater Ranges, With a Broader Area Coverage, Greater
Duration of Effects and High Volume of Fire

The MPM-NLWS Will:

• Initially be Deployed From the HMMWV (or its Replacement)
• Deliver Counter-Personnel Non-Lethal Effects Applicable to Controlling Crowds,
Denying / Defending Areas, Controlling Access and Engaging Threats
• Incapacitate its Intended Targets, Which is Disable, Inhibit or Degrade one or
More Functions or Capabilities of the Targets to Render Them Ineffective
• Provide Increased Standoff Distance for the Protection of Friendly Forces

5/27/2008 3
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
 MPM-NLWS Program Overview

2008
Technology
Demonstration
2009-2011
• The Technology System Development
Demonstration Phase and Demonstration
– One year demonstration
2012- 2014
phase leading into RFP • The SDD Phase
for System Development – Up to Three-year effort to Production
& Demonstration Phase develop, integrate, and
demonstrate an integrated • The Production Phase
• Objectives of the Technology system that satisfies the – Multi-year effort to
Demonstration Phase Capabilities Development produce the MPM-NLWS
– Demonstrate alternative Document and provide it to the
technologies for MPM- – Leads into a Capabilities warfighters
NLWS Production Document and
– Demonstrate payloads the RFP for production • Objective of the Production
systems Phase
• Results will inform SDD RFP – Provide an integrated
and support assessment of system that satisfies the
current technology CPD attributes

Number of contracts for the SDD Phase has not been determined
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
 FY08 Program

Industry Demonstrations
• Results of Market Research Indicated That a Mature Technology Base (TRL-6) Exists
• Several Developed Systems Purport to Already Achieve Many of the Required Capabilities
• Goal is to Leverage Industry’s Investments and Government’s Preference for Mature Solutions

Demonstrations Will Take Place During September 2008

• Currently in Source Selection for the Demonstration Contracts
• Demonstrations Will Inform Decisions for SDD Phase Contract (s)
• Vendors do not Need to Participate in the Demonstrations to bid on the SDD Phase

You do not need participate in the demonstration to bid for the SDD
contract(s)
5
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
 Current Challenges

Issue: Industry has Limited Payload Expertise and is Required to Develop a Non-Lethal Payload
That can Temporarily Incapacitate a Group of Personnel While Minimizing Risk of Permanent Injury

• Effect on Targeted Personnel

• Ranges to Target
• Risk of Permanent Injury

Challenges:
• How Does Industry Determine if Their Payload Will Satisfy the Requirement?

Mitigation:
• A Pre-Solicitation Industry Day Will be Held at MARCORSYSCOM Prior to Release of MPM-
NLWS SDD RFP

Anticipated Navy Electronic Commerce Online and Federal Business Opportunities Posting in
September 2008

Selection of an effective payload is critical to a winning MPM-NLWS

6
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
 Schedule

Approved USMC (Spiral One) Acquisition Objective: 312 Systems

Working for Army/Navy for Spiral Two

SDD Phase Will be Open to all Bidders

5/27/2008 7
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
How can industry Help Non-Lethal Systems / Force
Protection Programs?

Develop a non-lethal system (launcher and payload)

that reduces the risk of permanent injury while
maximizing incapacitation and duration of effect

5/27/2008 8
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
 Questions?

9
Distribution Statement A - Approved for Public Release
Canadian Small Arms Demonstration Project
Mr. Paul Harris, Mr. Gilles Pageau,
LCol Mike Bodner, LCol. Jacques Levesque, LCol. Luc Angiolini

National Defense Industrial Association

International Infantry and Joint Services Small Arms Systems
Annual Symposium
May 2008
Recherche et développement
pour la défense Canada
Defence Research and
Development Canada Canada
 Background
Soldier System Vision of the Canadian Forces
The Soldier as an integrated weapons platform:
a “System of Systems”

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

 Background
Capital Projects and Capability Development Plan
Support the Soldier System Vision of the Canadian Forces

ISSP
Sniper
System
SARP II

Clothe the Soldier + Soldier System 2020

Integrated Soldier Systems Program (ISSP)
Small Arms Replacement Project (SARP) II
R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada
Background
S&T Projects Support the Soldier System Vision

Mobility Systems AMMPHS

Environment Ballistic
Clothing Protection
System System
FAVS/ADVANCE

Weapon Systems
Head Systems

Soldier Integrated Precision

Personal SIPES TD
Effects System (SIPES)
SIHS TD
Network
Smart-Textile DIR Comms Systems
Battle Mgt Systems

Power Sources Sensors Systems

SaSnet Micro-UAV Personal
Navigation Systems UGS
ASAP TD

Fuel Cell DIR EA-MAV

SIREQ TD
 Background: SARP II

• In Oct 2007 the Options Analysis Phase of the Small Arms

Replacement Project II (SARP II) was approved
• SARP II is a joint omni-bus project to deliver a modern,
networked, integrated direct fire, multi-effect, portable anti-
personnel and anti-material capability that includes
weapons, fire control, munitions, training systems and
logistic support for the 2012-2022 period.
• Total project cost for SARP II exceeds $1 Billion
• SIPES TD is relevant to SARP II immediate needs, and also
has longer term applicability
(e.g.Soldier System 2020)

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

 Background: SARP II

SARP II Capability Deficiencies

• Lethality: does not defeat increased personal protection
• Ammunition: Minimal multi-effects and few non-lethal capabilities
• Accuracy: Requires significant level of training for effect
• Inconsistent Visibility: Even with viewing aids, visibility by day/night is
different.
• Signature Management: Noise/flash are distinctive.
• Integration/Networking: No direct link to the Integrated Soldier System
• Adaptive Dispersed Operations (ADO): Difficulty in integrating current
small arms into the net-enabled and dispersed concept of ADO
• Ergonomics: Poor weight, compactness and operating commonality
• Ancillaries: Ancillaries available but not integrated.

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

 SIPES Objective and Key Deliverables

Objective
To demonstrate the viability, utility and usability of
integrated novel and high pay-off small arms related
lethal and non-lethal technologies for future, lightweight,
small calibre weapon systems which address current
capability deficiencies
Key Deliverables
• Scientifically rigorous requirements analysis for SARP II
• Optimized soldier lethality options
• Improved weapon systems evaluation capabilities
• A future small arms R&D program plan

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

 SIPES Vision

• Make the Army of Tomorrow (AoT) Soldier a true

network-enabled precise weapon system platform
with the ability for sensor to shooter linkage and the
capability for applying the right effect at the right
place and the right time and thus supporting the AoT
force employment concept

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

 Program Relationships
FY 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20
SARP II OA
SARP II Fleet 1
Fleet 1 Def Fleet 1 Implem

SARP II Fleet 2
Fleet 2 Def Fleet 2 Implem

SARP II Fleet 3
Fleet 3 Def Fleet 3 Implem

SIPES Def SIPES TD Implementation Soldier 2020

Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP)

SIPES deliverables feed directly

Sniper Systems
in SARP II and ISSP Cycles
 SIPES Concept
Small arms functional prototypes based on component technologies that are
optimally integrated to maximize weapon system effectiveness. A systems
approach will be used to select component technologies based on Analytical
Hierarchy Procedure and Human Systems Integration principles. Operational
Analysis will be used to predict and asses weapon systems options.

Propellant Casing
1st Option Target
1st Option Bullet Acquisition
2nd Option 2nd Option 1st Option
3rd Option 3rd Option 2nd Option
etc etc 3rd Option
etc
Caliber
1st Option Barrel Target
2nd Option 1st Option Engagement
3rd Option Weapon Systems 2nd Option
etc Concept 1 3rd Option
etc
Sight
1st Option ETC. Rail
2nd Option 1st Option 1st Option Target
3rd Option 2nd Option 2nd Option Effects
etc 3rd Option 3rd Option
etc etc
 SIPES Methodology
Validate Understanding of the Operating Environment,
Desired Effects and Capability Gaps
0

Down Select and Spiral Off

Identify System Concepts for Different Fleets
and Supporting Component Technologies
Demonstration Level

PRM Decision Point

System Concept(s): Refinement and Simulation
1

Component Technologies: Simulation and Modelling

PRM Decision Point
Component Technologies:
2

Experimental Evaluation

PRM Decision Point

Integrated component technologies:
3

Static experimental test beds

PRM Decision Point

Functional Prototypes:
4

Dynamic demonstration

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

Demonstration Level 4

Component
Functional
Prototypes

System Functional Prototypes

Human Factors Type

Controlled User Field Trials
on
Instrumented Ranges

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

 System Functional Prototypes:
Sample platforms for technology integration and evaluation

Developer Designation Description

FN Herstal (Belgium) SCAR Assault Rifle for the U.S. Special
Operations Command
Beretta (Italy) ARX-160 Assault Rifle for Soldato Futuro program
HK (Germany) MP-7 4.6 mm caliber PDW
FN Herstal (Belgium) P90 5.7 mm caliber PDW

SCAR ARX-160

MP-7 P90

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

 Technology Building Blocks

• DRDC Related S&T Projects:

– Technology Demonstration Projects: SIREQ – Information,
ASAP – Power, SIHS – Helmet, JFS – Networking, Righttrack –
Green Munitions
– Applied Research Projects: Improved penetration, I2/IR
Weapons Sights, Wound ballistics, Non-lethal weapons
– Small Arms Scoping Studies – 2005 (Jane’s)
• NATO RTO group on Future Soldier Small Arms (interfaces,
power and human factors)
• Extensive DRDC core competencies and facilities
• Industrial expertise from Canadian companies and those
in Allied countries
• International cooperation and collaboration

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

 DRDC Core Competencies & Facilities

Valcartier Toronto Atlantic

• Wound ballistics & • Human Factors • Novel materials
lethality assessment Design and
Systems Integration • Material testing
• Aerodynamics/CFD
• Information
• Aeroballistic range Displays Operational Research
(CORA)
• Internal ballistics • Man Machine
Interface • Constructive
• Energetic materials simulation
• Interface Design
• Green munitions • OR studies
• 3D Anthropometry
• Integration of Electro- • Gap analysis
Optics/Sensors • Small arms trainer
• Design/prototyping
Munitions Evaluation
and Test Center
(METC)
• Weapon & munitions
testing

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

Sample Technology Area Maturity Levels

Current Potential
Key Technology Areas TRL Goal

High cyclic rate 6 7

Soft sensor mount 5 7

Weapons and
Ceramic barrels 6 7
Components
Injected Metal Matrix stock 4 6

New caliber and modular barrels 6 7

Caseless Telescoped 3 4

Cased Telescoped 4 5

High energy Nano Powder 3 4

Ammunition
Green ammunition 5 6

Segmented core bullet 2 4

Tunable (non lethal to lethal concepts) 3 4

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

Sample Technology Area Maturity Levels

Current Potential
Key Technology Areas TRL Goal

Non-conventional aiming 6 7
Modular FCS 6 7

Sensors and Fused SWIR / LWIR sight 5 6

Fire Control Sight with Automatic Target Recognition 4 6
System
(FCS) Automatic tracking and firing
3 5
(firing on the move)
Energy harvesting
3 4
(thermo-electric systems)
Wireless real-time link
5 7
to soldier system
Networks
and Plug and play Ethernet based architecture 3 5
Interfaces Biometric and RFID tagging 6 7
Power / data rail 4 7

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

Project Status

• Project Definition Phase formally approved in March 2008

• Project Definition Phase to run from April 2008 to February
2009
• Objectives for the Definition Phase
– Clarify Stakeholder’s Needs and directives
– Perform high-level technology review
– Clarify project scope
– Obtain approval for project implementation
• Integrated technology teams have been formed
• High-Level Technology review process to be carried out by
teams including personnel from government and industry
• Contractors to assist in High-Level Technology review are
being identified with contracting to begin in June

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

Questions ??

R & D pour la défense Canada • Defence R&D Canada

National Small Arms Center
& National Small Arms
Technology Consortium
Update

Candice Campbell – Co-Chair Executive

Committee
Frank Puzycki – Research Program Director
 Agenda
►The “Good”
►The “Bad”
►The “Ugly”
►The Future
 The “Good”
► Membership now totals around 90 firms/schools
► Business Calendar established integrating Technical,
Programmatic and Fiscal elements
► FY08 White Paper Process develops new Technology
Thrust
► Futures Conference lays the groundwork for a mid to long
term small arms tech base investment strategy
► JSSAP Tech Base Budget now integrated into NSAC
annual solicitation/budget cycle
► Industry actively engaged in concept development and
governance. Website management assumed as well.
 The “Good”
► FY08 Solicitation expected to obligate upwards of $4 M in
new program initiatives:
ƒ Advanced Fire Control
ƒ Enhanced Lethality
ƒ Other
► Does not include potential ancillary PM interests
► Major FY07 Technology Achievements include:
ƒ Stainless Steel Case development
ƒ Thermal Modeling – Small Arms Weapons
ƒ Development of an alternate tracer concept
ƒ Elimination of Cobalt in Armor Piercing ammunition penetrators
 Processes Timelines – Alternative #2
FY Basis

Time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Event RPC Prep Release Receive Project Eval
Award Task Orders Draft RPP B
B Meet Ann Plan RPP Proposals RPP

Draft Call for Receive

C
Joint JSSAP
AWG-RPC WP WP WP
C
Meeting Approve
Approve Annual Plan
Business
NSAC Development Plan
EXCOM
A EXCOM

JSSAST JSSAST
JSSAST
Receive
JSSAP Thrusts Deliver
Business Papers
Develop Prep Papers
Meet
Staffers

MATDEV Proposal HQS TRADOC HQDA Tech Guidance

Developed (MPD) 6.2 Future Dir Coun. Rec Priorities

Validate
ATO Submissions ASTWG
Approve
MACOM MATDEV TRADOC
6.3 Reviews Warfighter FOC
HQDA
Recommendation
POM Build
POM
JSSAP
Cycle Initiatives

Budget Services
Budget R2 (BES) Budget
R2 (BES) Budgets Due
Cycle Submitted Update Approved
OSD

12 September 2007
 Business Cycle – Key Events
► Call for Proposals – June/July
► Proposal Response Deadline – August
► Call for White Papers – August
► White Paper Deadline - October
► White Paper Analysis – November
► JSSAST/NSATC Exec Committee Endorsement –
November/December
► Handoff to NSATC Business Development
Committee - January
 The “Bad”
► FY08program stalled temporarily due to Other
Transaction Agreement guidance revision
ƒ Traditional versus Non-Traditional Member
Categorization
► Domino effect in terms of program development
and funding obligation
 The “Ugly”
► Future operations await reformulation of OTA
based organizational construct and related
acquisition processes
ƒ Status Quo
ƒ Annual BAA solicitation with RPP option
ƒ Single Party NSATC partnership with USG in a revised
OTA
► Multiple initiatives underway to clarify and
resolve this matter
 The Future
► Award FY08 Contract/TOSA efforts – Spring
► Semi-annual Membership Meeting at Fort
Benning on June 17 and 18
► Annual Solicitation for FY09 – Summer
► Annual White Paper Call - Fall
Frank P. Puzycki
973-724-6081
US Army ARDEC
frank.puzycki@us.army.mil
 NDIA
Small Arms Symposium
COL Robert Radcliffe
20 May 2008

1
 Agenda

• Small Arms Capabilities Based Assessment

• Soldier lethality
• Small arms capability today
• Small arms capability tomorrow
• Strategic communications
• Small arms division organization

2
 Small Arms CBA
Process and Participation
• Needed to establish the analytical basis for small arms requirements
• ARCIC initiated in FEB 07
• Study Team included broad base of knowledge and skills, significant Soldier input
• Identify tasks, establish conditions and standards, and assess current capability
against those standards to identify areas of interest
• Assess a combination of non-materiel and materiel solutions
• Prioritize non-materiel and materiel solutions
• ARCIC approved MAR 08

Participation in each phase of the Small Arms CBA included

>50% of
military panel
User: (TRADOC Schools and Centers, 197th Over 200 members were
officers and infantry MOSs
IN Bde, 82nd ABN, 75th Ranger ) NCOs

Joint: (JSSAP, USMC, USAF)

Warfighter Panels
Technical: (ARL, AMSAA, ARDEC)
Programmatic: (Sensors & Lasers, Soldier Military panel
members averaged
Weapons, Maneuver Ammunition Systems ) ~15 months OEF/OIF
experience

3
 Small Arms CBA
What Soldiers Need

• See the enemy

• Beyond weapon ranges for situational awareness
• At weapons ranges for engagement
• All conditions
• Day or night
• Bad guys vs. civilians
Not exactly
• Kill the enemy a revelation
• Really about effect (or incapacitation)
• Impacts of range versus time
• Noise and light discipline
• Breaching capability
• Maintenance and Reliability A different approach
in small Arms
Soldier + Training + Weapon + Optic + Ammo = Effect

4
 Soldier Lethality

Lethality isn’t just about the weapon…..

• Soldier
• Training
• Weapon EFFECT
• Optic
• Ammunition

5
 Improving Soldier Lethality

• Lethality is like real-estate……location, location, location

• Solutions to improve lethality Requires quality
• 0-50m: Training, Ammo and Techniques hit on the target

• 50-500m: Training and Optics/Fire Control

• Factors for hitting downrange targets
1.00
#1 Aim point bench
0.80
#2 Range Estimation
Probability of Hit

0.60
#3 Environmental
0.40
#4 Dispersion of weapon
qualification
0.20

stress
0.00
0 200 Range (meters)
400 600

6
Today’s Small Arms Capability

• M4 is effective weapon in combat

• Expanded issue of Rail Adapter System
• Unprecedented capability (optics+)

• Enormous field support for all 3 weapons

• Expanded issue of optics on M249 & M240B
• Improved of night capability
• Effective sustainment of M249

• Currently fielding M110 Semi-Auto capability

• Expanded use of precision engagement assets
• Fielding of Advanced Sniper Accessory Kit

7
Tomorrow’s Small Arms Capability
• Monitor Air Force handgun effort
Modular Handgun
System • Add sub-compact capability to the force
Subcompact • Optics on every weapon
Expand Carbine
• Expand precision engagement capability in
Issue
squads

• Performance, Safety, Reliability, Weight

• M240E6 4.5 lb lighter, lighter tripod
M240E6
• Heavy Machinegun day optic
E50 • E50, Fixed Head-space and timing,
Lightweight 50 quick change barrel

• Expand capability of sniper suite, issue

• Pursue 1500m anti-personnel weapon
1500m capability

8
 Strategic Communications

Small
SmallArms
Arms Soldiers
Soldiers
Community
Community

Infantry
Infantry Balance
Balance
Technical
TechnicalMaturity
Center
Center and
Maturity
and
Operational
OperationalValue
Value

Joint
Joint
Services
Services
Industry
Industry
9
 Small Arms Division
MAJ
MAJTom
TomHenthorn
Henthorn
Division
DivisionChief
Chief
thomas.henthorn@
thomas.henthorn@
706-545-1910
706-545-1910

Individual
Individual Crew-Served
Crew-Served Ammunition
Ammunition Future
Future
Weapons
Weapons Weapons
Weapons Technology
Technology

Mr.
Mr.Charley
Charley Mr.
Mr. Troy
TroyHarris
Harris Mr.
Mr. John
JohnAmick
Amick
Pavlick Crew-Served Small Arms
Small Arms
Pavlick Crew-Served
Weapons Ammunition
Individual & Specialty
Individual & Specialty Weaponsandand Ammunition
9mm
Weapons
Weapons Optics
Optics 9mm––40mm
40mm
charles.pavlick1@
charles.pavlick1@ troy.e.harris@
troy.e.harris@ john.w.amick@
john.w.amick@
706-545-5039
706-545-5039 706-545-3181
706-545-3181 706-545-5013
706-545-5013

SFC
SFC Bill
BillHarper
Harper
Individual
Individual
Weapons
WeaponsNCONCO
bill.harper1@
bill.harper1@ Mr. Chuck Olsen
706-545-1078 Mr. Chuck Olsen
Sniper Weapons,
706-545-1078 Sniper Weapons,
Suppressors
Suppressors
Mr.
Mr.Doug
DougHughes
Hughes JSSAP
JSSAPLNO,
LNO,SEP,
SEP,ATO
ATO
Night
NightOptics
Opticsand
andLasers
Lasers chuck.olsen@
chuck.olsen@
douglas.hughes@ 706-545-2459
706-545-2459
email addresses douglas.hughes@
are @us.army.mil 706-545-4950
706-545-4950
10
 Summary

Enable Soldiers to be effective in their

operational environment

11
Interoperability and Integration of
Dismounted Soldier System
Weapon Systems Update

Mr. Mark Richter

Chairman
SCI-178 RTG-043
21 May 2008

Program Manager
Marine Expeditionary Rifle Squad
Marine Corps Systems Command
Quantico, Virginia
 Overview
• NATO Research and Technology Organization: formed in 1998; ensures the
Alliance has at its disposal the best scientific knowledge and technical
capability that member nations are prepared to make commonly available.
R&T must be responsive to changing requirements and conditions, long
term capability requirements, and new science and technology
advancements. See www.rta.nato.int for more info.
• Land Capability Group-1 Weapons and Sensor Sub Group desired to initiate
a R&D effort to answer critical weapons subsystem problems for current
interoperability issues and long term soldier system interfaces and
development issues.
• 10 Countries from LCG-1 teamed together: Canada, Germany, Italy, The
Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and United
States (Army and Marine Corps). Submitted a proposal to the NATO RTO
Panel which was approved.
• Exploratory Team developed Terms of Reference, Technical Activity Plan,
and Plan of Work during 2005. A Task Group was initiated in January 2006
with a completion timeline slated for December 2008.
• Membership in the Task Group requires countries to allocate resources to
support the Task Group.
• Task Group meets every 3-4 months.
• Includes live fire events with current and prototype soldier system
equipment.
 Objectives
• Recommendation for NATO standard Weapons
System Interface STANAG.
• Define and Outline Human Systems Integration
principles and concepts for future Soldier
Weapons Systems.
• Investigate the Power Requirements for future
weapon systems and methods of providing or
generating power.
 Organization
• The Task Group is led by the Chairman and the Heads
of Delegation of the 10 countries.
• Three sub groups
– Technical Interface Team: Led by Mr. Per Arvidsson from
Sweden.
– Human Factors Team: Led by Major Linda Bossi from Canada.
– Power Team: Led by Mr. Karl Heinz Rippert from Germany.
• All three Teams have to work together because of
overlap in various areas.
• Completion of tasks: NLT December 2008
• One year extension requested for increase scope of
work. Pending approval by RTO HQ’s.
Requirements for future rail
• Straightness
• Repeatability
• Zero retention
• Power supply
• Data transfer
• Physical characteristics
• Environmental resistance

• Per Arvidsson will cover this in more

detail in his presentation following
this one.
 Digital Models
8 AN/PVS-13 Thermal
1 M203 Grenade Launcher
Weapon Sight

9 AN/PVS-14
I2 Sight
2 Bayonet

10 Off-bore Camera
3 C79 Scope

11 Controls (e.g. Radio)

4 Tactical Flashlight

5 Holographic Sight 12 FCU-HW

Fire control for M203

6 Laser Sight 13 Battery Stock

7 Tri Rail Mount 14 Butt-stock

Magazine Pouch
 Preliminary Model
• Example digital models of rifle and ancillary equipment.

Equipment
1. M203 Grenade Launcher
2. Bayonet Configuration Equipment Total Mass
3. Telescopic Scope (Elcan C79)
4. Tactical Flashlight Light C7A2 only (loaded) 3.53 kg

5. Holographic Sight
6. Laser Sight (e.g. red dot) Medium C7A2 plus 1,2,3,4 6.45 kg

7. Tri Rail Mount

8. Off-bore camera Heavy C7A2 plus
1,2,4,7,8,10,11,12,
9.68 kg

9. Controls (e.g. radio controls) 14

10. Battery Stock

11. Butt-stock magazine pouch
12. Thermal weapon sights (AN-PVS-13 Medium, Small)
13. I2 (Image Intensification) sight (AN-PVS-14)
14. Fire control unit for M203
 Light Weight Rifle
Light (3.78 kg): C7 assault rifle, holographic sight,
and 1 loaded (30 round) magazine
 Medium Weight Rifle

Medium (6.14 kg): C7 assault rifle, 1 loaded (30 round) magazine,

ELCAN C79 Optical Sight, M203 Grenade
Launcher, Flashlight, and Laser Aimer
 Heavy Weight Rifle
Heavy (8.31 kg): C7 assault rifle, 1 loaded (30 round) magazine,
M203 Grenade Launcher, AN/PAS Thermal Weapon
Sight, tactical flashlight, and bayonet
 Angular Velocity (radians/sec)

Time (sec)
Angular Velocity
Movement Time

Movement Time

1.85

Time (sec) 1.8

1.75

1.7

1.65

1.6
Light Medium Heavy
Rifle Weight Condition
Movement Accuracy

Initial Accuracy

1.6000

Deviation (degrees)
1.4000
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
Light Medium Heavy
Rifle Weight Condition
Weapon Sighting
Future Soldier Systems
 Testing Evolutions
• Rifle Weight Study
– Range Firing
• Engagement Performance
• High Speed Camera Data
– Extended Hold

– Obstacle Course Traverse

• Sight Offset Study

• Butt Stock Integration Study

 Rifle Weight & CoM
CM of
-7cm Rifle +7cm
(X=0)

Initial Accuracy

1.6000
Deviation (degrees)

1.4000
1.2000
1.0000
0.8000
0.6000
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
Light Medium Heavy
Rifle Weight Condition

0.75 kg 1 kg
A-1 Ingot
Rifle Weight System
Range Setup and Flow
Targets

Firing Lanes
(4-6 Marines)

Questionnaire Tent
Weapons Target with 3 Laptops
and Controller (generator required)
Weights
 Range Serials
• Pivot and Fire
– 90o from right and left (controlled pairs)
– 180o from right and left (controlled pairs)
• Mozambique “failure to stop” Drill
– 90o pivot from right and left
– Hammer pair chest and single shot to head
• Extended Hold and Fire
– 20 second hold on aim point
– 5 rds aimed shot grouping
 Automatic Target Scoring

• Accuracy of shot

• Shot grouping

• Time to Engage
 Subjective Measures

• Shooting

• Handling

• Obstacle Traverse

• Computer Kiosk
 Video Recordings

• Muzzle Rise
• Slew
• Rifle Control
 Extended Hold
• 50 sec hold on target point.
• Baseline, 4 kg front, and 4 kg
back.
• Video sight imagery.
• Time for hold.
• RPE.
 O-course Mobility

• 15 Marine Participants

• Time to complete

• RPE

• Questionnaire Kiosk
O-course Mobility
Sight Offset Study
 Sight Off-set Study
• Pilot study with seven
Marines
• CG634 Add-on System
• In-line and lateral off-set
sights.
• Time to engage and
accuracy data.
 Butt Stock Integration
– Protection Issues

– Target Engagement
Issues
Butt Stock Integration
Buttstock and HBS Integration
 Power Issues
Interoperability and Standardization
• Difficult to standardize on one battery type - “family” of
batteries need to be explored (part of report)
• Consult with HF and Interface
– “maximum” room on weapon (size, weight and location) could be recommended
for future weapons concepts
• Common connection to outside – LCG1 has
overarching document on C4I architecture
 Power requirement schematic
No data connection
Soldier energy source
Compatibility: voltage/current

A B C

devices
w/o batteries connector

charging Bay
Batteries in Butt stock G36
 2008 Remaining Work
• Additional Human Factors trials with Swedish
soldiers in June 2008
• Live fire trials with Italian soldiers in September
2008
• National data collection by participating
countries
• Finish analysis of data and complete reports.
• STANAG submission on NATO standard rail.
• Remain on schedule
 2009 Scope of Work
(Additional Year)
– Technical Interfaces – recommendation for a powered NATO
rail annex to the delivered NATO rail STANAG.
– Human Factors – additional scope of work to include weapon
information display characterization, standardization of control
devices. The additional year also allows for additional data
collection through more live fire trials of the weapon weight
characteristics. Lessons learned from recent live fire trials and
newly acquired data collection equipment has increased the
scope of issues associated with integration of emerging
technologies.
– Power – finalize experimentation and trials to determine the
tactical benefits of power rails and implications with
implementation of centralized power source. During this
additional year, the technical interface sub group will merge
with the power group and power will be the overall focus of
effort.
 Industry Participation
• Participation of Industry encouraged to assist in the
success of this Task Group.
• Provide support to the sub groups areas of expertise.
• Sponsorship by a participating nation or information
presentation or work.
• Intellectual Property; preference for open source
• Solicitations provided by participating countries
• On schedule to finish current tasks. Awaiting one year
extension. 2009 we will combine the Interface and Power
sub team into one group.
 SCI-178 RTG-043
Points of Contact
• Chairman – Mr. Mark Richter
– Mark.richter@usmc.mil
• Interface Chairman – Mr. Per Arvidsson
– Per.arvidsson@fmv.se
• Human Factors Chairman – Major Linda Bossi
– Linda.bossi@drdc-rddc.gc.ca
• Power Chairman – Mr. Karl-Heinz Rippert
– KarlHeinzRippert@bwb.org
• Canada- Major Bruce Gilchrist
• Germany- Mr. Karl-Heinz Rippert
• Italy- Col Carmelo de Giorgio
• The Netherlands – Major Franz van Weenan
• Norway- Mr. Haakon Fyske
• Slovakia- Mr. Lubomir Uherik
• Spain – Mr. Angel Perez
• Sweden- Mr. Per Arvidsson
• Romania – Major Tiberius Tomoiaga
• United States Army – Mr. David Ahmad
• United States Marine Corps – Mr. Mark Richter
 Time for a Change
U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition
Failures and Solutions

NDIA Dallas, TX
21 May 2008

Gary K. Roberts, LCDR, USNR

 Author’s Background & Qualifications
Dr. Roberts is currently on staff at Stanford University Medical Center; this is a large teaching
hospital and Level I Trauma center were he performs hospital dentistry and surgery. After
completing his residency at Navy Hospital Oakland in 1989 while on active military duty, he studied
at the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory at the Letterman Army Institute of Research and
became one of the first members of the International Wound Ballistic Association. Since then, he
has been tasked with performing military, law enforcement, and privately funded independent
wound ballistic testing and analysis. He remains a Navy Reserve officer and has recently served
on the Joint Service Wound Ballistic IPT, as well as being a consultant to the Joint FBI-USMC
munitions testing program and the TSWG MURG program. He is frequently asked to provide wound
ballistic technical assistance to numerous U.S. and allied SOF units and organizations. In addition,
he is a technical advisor to the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners, as well as to a
variety of Federal, State, and municipal law enforcement agencies. He has been a sworn Reserve
Police Officer in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he now he serves in an LE training role.
1. Training…and More Training

2. Reliable and Durable Weapon System

3. Ammunition Terminal Performance

The first two items must be fully and

adequately addressed before the third item
becomes a serious concern…
 What’s Wrong With This Picture?
In 1940, the prototype P51 Mustang successfully flew just 178 days after the initial order had been
placed. Now in the 21st century, despite the efforts of many smart folks, few small arms
improvements seem to get rapidly completed and expediently fielded--there is a significant gap
between what we KNOW and what we actually DO for our warriors. If such glacial procurement
had occurred during WWII, the war would have ended before any new weapons were fielded.

SALVO, SPIW, 6 mm SAW, ACR, XM29, XM8…even with modern engineering, CAD/CAM
techniques, and new materials many proposed U.S. small arms and ammunition improvements cost
tens of millions of dollars, years of RDT&E, and then rarely seem to ever actually reach the field.

Millions of dollars are poured into next generation small arms technologies with no near-term
potential to improve combat capability, like caseless, telescoping, snd air-burst ammo, while simple
innovative incremental advances that can immediately make an impact in combat operations, like
barrier blind ammunition and intermediate calibers, get minimal funding or are ignored.

DOD replaces computer hardware and software every 3 or 4 years, yet does not offer the same
type of incremental improvements for small arms weapons and ammunition, despite similar costs.

The sacred alter of “green” ammo has sucked up tens of millions of dollars over many years in the
nebulous pursuit of “non-toxic” ammunition, yet with a few COTS exceptions, has not resulted in
any improvements in ammunition reliability, accuracy, or terminal performance--the factors that
actually help win fights.

Overly complex, fundamentally flawed computer modeling and excessive statistical manipulations
that don’t reflect reality are often used to try and predict military ammunition terminal performance
and “lethality” instead of the more common sense approach using the physiological damage based
methodology proven to closely correlate with numerous actual shooting incidents in over two
decades use by law enforcement agencies and wound ballistic researchers.
The United States made several major missteps in its search for the ideal combat rifle caliber. In
the late 1920’s, the U.S. Army selected the .276 Pederson caliber produced by Frankford Arsenal
as the best caliber for a new semi-automatic rifle. The .276 fired a 125 gr bullet at approximately
2700 f/s. Ordnance trials determined that John Garand’s new .276 caliber T3E2 rifle was an ideal
combat weapon, however, development of the .276 rifle was halted in 1932 because of the large
remaining stocks of old .30-06 caliber M1906 150 gr FMJ ammunition left over from WWI; thus
the U.S. military threw away an opportunity to adopt the superior performing .276 caliber and the
M1 Garand rifle was adopted in the old .30-06 caliber.

Following WWII the United States Army again made a colossal weapon system selection error
when it rejected the British .270 caliber 130 gr and .280 caliber 140 gr ammunition fired at
approximately 2400 f/s and instead insisted on the full power 7.62 x 51 mm cartridge that offered
nearly identical ballistic characteristics as the old .30-06 it replaced. Given the 7.62 mm’s
extremely short life as the standard service rifle caliber, in hindsight, we can hypothesize that both
the .270 (6.8 mm) and .280 (7 mm) would probably have been ideal combat rifle calibers and
might still be in use today if either had been chosen.

In 1972, the U.S. Army issued a MNS and detailed specifications for a new SAW/LMG. At that
time, in reviewing calibers for the new system, 5.56 x 45 mm was felt to lack effective range and
terminal performance while 7.62 x 51 mm was felt to be too heavy; weapon developers and joint
users felt no current weapons systems and calibers could meet the requirements, thus a new
compromise caliber was necessary--this became the 6 x 45 mm SAW. The 6 mm SAW used a
105 gr low drag bullet fired at around 2450 fps. In 1976, the Army ordered that SAW design
efforts be redirected, this included stopping development of the 6 mm SAW cartridge (in part for
fear of irritating our NATO allies) and focusing efforts on 5.56 mm LMG designs (XM248/(XM235),
XM249/(FN Minimi), XM262/(HK21A-1).
While 5.56 mm 55 gr M193 (FN SS92) was standard in the 1960’s and 1970’s, attempts to
improve 5.56 mm effectiveness included the XM287 68 gr FMJ and the IWK 77 gr FMJ--both used
in the Stoner 63 by NSW in Viet Nam; the 54 gr XM777, as well as the SS109 62 gr FMJ
developed by FN for their Minimi LMG. As we all know, the end result was the 1980 decision to
adopt the 5.56 mm Minimi as the M249 SAW and the SS109 as the 62 gr FMJ M855 “green-tip”.
As noted, 5.56 mm NATO 62 gr SS-109/M855 FMJ was designed over 30 years ago as linked
machine gun ammunition to be fired from the FN Minimi/M249 SAW while engaging enemy troops
wearing light body armor during conventional infantry combat at distances of several hundred
meters--while not a perfect solution, M855 does perform adequately in this role.
Unfortunately, combat operations since late 2001 have again highlighted terminal performance
problems, generally manifested as failures to rapidly incapacitate opponents, during combat
engagements when M855 62 gr “Green Tip” FMJ is fired from 5.56 mm rifles and carbines. This
is not surprising, since M855 was not originally intended for use in carbines or rifles, especially
those with short barrels. In addition, most 5.56 mm bullets are generally less effective when
intermediate barriers, such as walls, glass, and vehicles shield opponents--this is a significant
consideration in urban combat. The decreased incapacitation potential of 5.56 mm compared with
larger rifle calibers is intrinsic to the small caliber varmint hunting roots of the 5.56 mm cartridge;
in many states it is illegal to hunt deer size game with 5.56 mm, so why do we expect it to offer
ideal terminal performance against aggressive, violent 100-200 lbs human opponents?
As an interim solution to these problems, deployed SOF units have used 5.56 mm Mk262. The
Black Hills produced Mk262 uses the 77 gr Sierra Match King (SMK) OTM and is built as premium
quality ammunition intended for precise long-range semi-auto rifle shots from the Mk12 rifle. It is
great for its intended purpose. Mk262 has demonstrated improved accuracy, greater effective
range, and more consistent performance at all distances compared to M855 when fired from
current M16, Mk12, M4, HK416, and Mk18 rifles and carbines. However, despite this substantially
improved performance, Mk262 still manifests the problems of poor intermediate barrier
penetration and somewhat variable terminal performance inherent with the SMK design.
The disturbing failure of 5.56 mm to consistently offer adequate incapacitation
has been known for nearly 15 years. Dr. Fackler’s seminal work at the
Letterman Army Institute of Research Wound Ballistic Laboratory during the
1980’s illuminated the yaw and fragmentation mechanism by which 5.56 mm
FMJ bullets create wounds in tissue. If 5.56 mm bullets fail to upset (yaw,
fragment, or deform) within tissue, the results are
relatively insignificant wounds, similar to those
produced by .22 LR--this is true for ALL
5.56 mm bullets, including military FMJ , OTM, and AP,
as well as JHP and JSP designs used in LE. This failure of 5.56 mm bullets to
upset can be caused by reduced impact velocities when hitting targets at
longer ranges, as well as by the decreased muzzle velocity when using short
barrel carbines. Failure to upset can also occur when bullets pass through
minimal tissue, such as a limb or the torso of a thin, small statured individual,
as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to upset. Finally, bullet
design and construction plays a major role in reliable bullet upset. Without
consistent bullet upset, wounding effects are decreased, rapid incapacitation
is unlikely, and enemy combatants may continue to pose a threat to friendly
forces and innocent civilians.
Angle-of-Attack (AOA) variations between different
projectiles, even within the same lot of ammo, as
well as Fleet Yaw variations between different rifles,
were recently elucidated by the JSWB-IPT. These
yaw issues were most noticeable at close ranges
and were more prevalent with certain calibers and
bullet styles—the most susceptible being 5.56 mm
FMJ ammunition like M855 and M193.

What this means is that two shooters firing the same

lot of M855 from their M4’s with identical shot
placement can have dramatically different terminal
performance results: one shooter states that his
M855 is working great and is effective at dropping
bad guys, while the other complains his opponents
are not being incapacitated because M855 is zipping
right through the targets without upsetting. Both
shooters are telling the truth…
2.5 degree AOA @ impact 12” 0.5 degree AOA @ impact 12”
As articulated by combat AAR’s the last few years and demonstrated in recent military wound
ballistic testing, improved combat ammunition that is specifically designed for rifle and carbine
use, not machine guns, is urgently needed. New loads should offer:

 JAG approval  Acceptable accuracy at 300-500m

 Full reliability in diverse  Good soft tissue terminal
environmental extremes performance (early consistent bullet
 A thermally stable propellant upset within 1 or 2 inches of initial
 Consistent lot-to-lot and shot-to-shot tissue penetration
performance, even when fired from  12-18 inches of penetration coupled
short barrel weapons with maximized tissue damage during
 Crimped and sealed primer the first 10 to 12 inches of travel in
 Sealed case mouth tissue
 Cannelure for functional reliability in  Designed to minimize AOA and fleet
adverse conditions yaw issues
 Decreased muzzle flash  Blind to Barriers

It is critical that new combat ammunition be “Blind to Barriers” and not suffer from terminal
performance degradation from intermediate barriers--especially automobile windshields &
doors, and common structural walls.

Ammunition should be light and compact enough for the operator to carry an adequate supply
in magazines of at least a 25 round capacity. The rifle should be similar in size, weight, and
ergonomics to the proven M4/M16 weapons. Recoil should be manageable to allow full auto
fire when necessary, along with the more usual rapid, aimed semi-automatic fire.
 Important Gel Block Measurements to Assess Terminal Effectiveness
The shot into bare gelatin depicted below illustrates ideal terminal performance.
“Barrier Blind” ammunition should demonstrate minimal changes in terminal performance between
unobstructed shots into bare gelatin and those obstructed by intermediate barriers.

Pen = 12.1” NL = 0.8” TC = 4.5” max diam @ 4.2” depth TC length from 0.8” to 8.1” of pen
1. Initial Upset Depth (Neck Length) -- Optimally 1” or less, up to 3”
2. Temp Cavity Length -- As long as possible in the first 12” of penetration
3. Temp Cavity Height & Width -- Bigger is better in first 12” of penetration
4. Depth to Max Temp Cavity Diameter -- Typically at 4” to 6” of pen
5. Total Depth of Penetration -- Less than 12” & more than 18” is not ideal
Note: The ideal shot depicted above is a 6.8 mm Hornady 115 gr OTM impacting at 2600 fps
Tom Burczynski’s superb photos of 5.56
mm projectiles as they penetrate through 2”
wide sections of 10% gelatin clearly
illustrate the critical importance of early
projectile upset within the first 1 or 2” of
penetration.
The barrier blind, FBI issued, ATK/Federal
62 gr bonded Tactical load on top has
completely upset within the first 2” of gel
penetration, demonstrating good tissue
crush and stretch.
In contrast, the Mk262 loading using the
77 gr SMK OTM on the bottom has not even
begun to upset during the first 2” of
penetration through gel, resulting in minimal
tissue stretch and crush at this point.

5.56 mm BOTTOM LINE

Simply adopting new 5.56 mm barrier
blind combat loads that are optimized for
shorter barrels, offer consistent early
upset, along with adequate penetration,
and minimal AOA/Fleet yaw issues may
be the critical answer to many
deficiencies noted with currently issued
U.S. military 5.56 mm ammunition.
The 01 June 2006 Marine Corps RFI for “Barrier Blind” ammo yielded several good
options from industry including the ATK 77 gr bonded TOTM:

Fed 77 gr TOTM in bare gel: vel = 2677 f/s, NL = 0.5”, pen = 16.75”, Max TC = 4.5” @ 4.5”, RW = 76.0 gr

Fed 77 gr TOTM auto glass: vel = 2677 f/s, NL = 0”, pen = 15.25”, Max TC = 4.2” @ 3.5”, RW = 42.8 gr
“In response to inquiries from the field, the Army’s Project Manager, Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM
MAS) has assembled a team of experts from many disciplines including military users, law enforcement,
trauma surgeons, aero ballisticians, weapon and munitions engineers, and other scientific specialists to
answer the question--Are there Commercial Off-the-Shelf 5.56mm bullets available that are better than
M855 “Green Tip” against unarmored targets in Close Quarters Battle (CQB)?”
Despite what was publicly released in the heavily truncated “final” JSWB-IPT report from May
2006, as well as the information presented in Infantry Magazine that was replete with significant
data omissions, anybody who has seen the actual data from the 10,000 or so test shots collected
by the JSWB-IPT at 3-10m, 100m, and 300m distances or who has read the original 331 page final
draft report dated 12 April 2006, knows that the clear and unequivocal best performing cartridge in
the JSWB-IPT testing was 6.8 mm. In addition, several 5.56 mm loads performed better than
current M855, especially from shorter barrels. This was validated by the 11 August 2006 joint
USMC/FBI Phase I Ammunition Study report that once again clearly illustrated that 6.8 mm offered
the best terminal performance of ALL calibers tested. The report also demonstrated that the 5.56
mm 62 gr “Barrier Blind” load used by the FBI and other LE agencies offered superior terminal
performance to current military issue 5.56 mm ammunition. The JSWB-IPT wrote:
 “The best performing systems emphasizing tissue damage, on the average, in this
study were of larger caliber than 5.56 mm.”
 “The 6.8 mm performance observed in this test suggests that an intermediate
caliber is the answer to the trade-off balance issue.”
 “The 6.8 mm projectile had a near optimal balance of MASS, VELOCITY,
and CONFIGURATION to maintain its effectiveness, even at a lower impact
velocity.”
 “The 6.8mm SPC is far and above, the best performing ammunition…”
Thus, the Road Ahead for Military Small Arms Ammunition should emphasize:
“Barrier Blind” ammunition in all calibers, calibers larger than 5.56 mm,
especially intermediate calibers like 6.8 mm
The SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) program, jointly developed by 5th SFG(A) and USAMU in
conjunction with USSOCOM requirement validation, built on historical data in creating the 6.8 x 43 mm
SPC. 6.8 mm is the perfect refinement of the hypothesis that a 6.5 to 7 mm bullet is the ideal choice for
combat; it combines the best features of both the more traditional 7.62 x 51 mm “battle rifle” cartridge and
the more recent 5.56 x 45 mm “assault rifle” cartridge without either of their deficits. In addition, 6.8 mm
offers superior accuracy and incapacitation potential compared to the 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge fired by
AK47 rifles commonly used by our opponents. Unlike 5.56 mm NATO and 7.62 mm NATO weapons,
6.8 mm was designed from the beginning to offer optimal performance in the sub-16” short barreled
carbines favored by U.S. forces fighting in urban settings and from vehicles.
6.8 mm was conceived and developed entirely by experienced military end-users based on identified
combat mission needs. Their Commanders approved the project, trusted the competence of their
subordinates, and supported them in developing the best solution for troops at the tip of the proverbial
spear. This was a bottom-up project where the personnel who will have to use the weapon in combat for
once got to develop exactly what they needed, rather than the more common top-down approach where
engineers develop a product that is all too often long-delayed and that does not necessarily adequately
address the needs of combat personnel in the field. The 6.8 mm SPC project was also very
inexpensive—in an era of massive fiscal waste, the 6.8 mm SPC initial RDT&E costs for the government
were less than $5000.

During SPC development different bullet

diameters of 6 mm, 6.5 mm, 6.8mm,
7 mm, and 7.62 mm were tested, using
multiple bullet types, shapes, and
weights from 90 to 140 gr--the 6.8 mm
was selected because it offered the
BEST combination of combat accuracy,
reliability, and terminal performance for
0-500 yard engagements in an M4 size
package.
100
100mmthrough autowindshield
through auto windshield

5.56 mm
12” 62 gr M855

6.8 mm offers substantial fiscal advantages, as a

5.56 mm significant increase in weapon effectiveness over current
5.56 mm weapons is achieved for minimal procurement
77 gr Mk262 costs.

5.56 mm
62 gr Tactical The 6.8 mm can be retrofitted to any existing 5.56 mm
Bonded rifle and carbine platforms, including the M4A1, Mk12
SPR, M-16, Mk18 CQB-R, HK416, FN Mk16 SCAR-L,
simply by changing a few modular components, mainly
barrel, bolt, and magazine.

6.5 mm Grendel
120 gr OTM

6.8 mm magazines hold from 25-30 rounds; fortunately,

6.8 mm 6.8 mm magazines have the same external dimensions
115 gr OTM as existing 30 round 5.56 mm M16 magazines, allowing
continued use of all current load bearing equipment and
magazine pouches when upgrading to 6.8 mm.
 5.56 mm
77 gr Mk262 OTM
at 2735 f/s

5.56 mm
62 gr M855 FMJ
at 2850 f/s (short NL)

5.56 mm
62 gr M855 FMJ
at 2850 f/s (long NL)

5.56 mm
62 gr ATK Tactical
at 2680 f/s

6.8 mm
115 gr OTM
at 2600 f/s

Centimeters Penetration

10 20 30 40 50
 6.8 mm offers superior
terminal EFFECTIVENESS 6.8 mm 115 gr OTM fired through loaded
compared to 5.56 mm in all AK47 mag at 3 meters
environments, including
CQB & Urban, especially
when fired from short
barrels.

Unlike 5.56 mm, 6.8 mm

continues to demonstrate good
terminal performance even after
defeating common intermediate
barriers, such as glass, walls, 5.56 mm M855
and automobiles, as well as 62 gr FMJ
loaded AK47 magazines, like fired through
those frequently worn in chest loaded AK 47
pouches by terrorists. mag
at 3 meters

5.56 mm Mk262
77 gr OTM
Both tungsten and steel core 6.8 fired through
mm AP bullets are now available loaded AK 47 mag
at 3 meters
 Test Evaluation Report
for the M4A1/MK12
Modified Upper Receiver Group
(MURG)

Counter Terrorism Technical Support

Office (CTTSO)
Technical Support Working Group
(TSWG)
Tactical Operations Subgroup (TOS)

July 2007
TSWG’s multi-agency clients, including
DOD SMU’s, Army SF, NSW, Air Force
SOF, U.S. OGA’s, Federal LE
organizations, and select foreign military
SOF units, requested an evaluation to
determine if an Enhanced Rifle Caliber was
currently available to meet a validated
Combat Mission Needs Statement (CMNS)
and Operational Needs Statement (ONS)
for improving the combat performance of
current rifles and carbines.
 Based on all available test results to date, end-users selected
6.8 mm as the best available intermediate caliber for the
TSWG multi-agency task force MURG evaluation.
Three different MURG variants were required:
-- Special Compact Carbine with 8-10” barrel (SCC = Mk18 equivalent)
-- Standard Carbine with 12-14” barrel (SC = M4 equivalent)
-- Designated Marksman-Recce with 16-18” barrel (DMR = Mk12 equivalent)
6.8 mm MURG systems from four vendors were tested: Barrett, Bushmaster, HK,
LWRC, with the 5.56 mm Colt M4A1 as baseline.
Test Conclusions Include:
 6.8 mm MURG is a COTS NDI item ready for full fielding in the next 12 months
 6.8 mm MURG is fully compatible with existing M4A1 and M16 lower receivers
 6.8 mm MURG allows end-user to change between variants in the field within seconds
 NO parts failures occurred in any 6.8 mm MURG system during testing
 6.8 mm MURG systems exhibited accuracy, reliability, suppressor capability, recoil
management, and engagement speed that were equivalent or better than current
5.56 mm weapons
 6.8 mm MURG is available as a gas piston/op rod system for improved durability,
reliability, and reduced user maintenance
 6.8 mm MURG should be treated as an integrated system--upper, magazines, suppressor,
and ammunition to ensure maximum reliability
MURG allows units to train with 5.56 mm uppers currently in service and fight with
identically configured 6.8 mm uppers, as the “muscle memory”,
weapons handling skills, and LBE are identical.
To alleviate the problems of marginal incapacitation potential and intermediate barrier penetration
ability inherent with 5.56 mm, re-adoption of a 7.62 x 51 mm length cartridge is a consideration
(ex. 7.62 x 51 mm, 7 x 46 mm, 6.5 mm Creedmore). The superior range, incapacitation potential,
& barrier penetration ability of 7.62 x 51 mm based systems may prove a decisive advantage
compared to smaller caliber weapon systems, however ammunition with terminal performance far
SUPERIOR to currently issued M80 ball is MANDATORY to optimize the potential of 7.62 mm
rifles for CQB and urban combat !

Neither type of current 7.62 mm M80 FMJ possesses ideal accuracy or terminal performance
characteristics, especially from barrels shorter than 16-18”. 7.62 mm M118LR 175 gr OTM used
in sniper rifles like the Mk11, M110, M24, and M40A3 is very accurate and offers good
performance at longer ranges--making it ideal for sniper use. However, the documented
inconsistent close range terminal performance and poor intermediate barrier performance of the
heavy SMK OTM make it a less than ideal choice for CQB engagements, urban combat, and short
barrel use. Improved ammunition is required to optimize terminal performance with shorter barrel
7.62 x 51 mm weapons (Mk14/M14 EBR, KAC SR25K, HK417, FN Mk17 SCAR-H).
Despite the many desirable characteristics of 7.62 x 51 mm based systems, they have several
significant penalties, including increased cost, size, weight, and recoil, as well as decreased
magazine capacity and decreased control in full auto fire. The basic ammo load is reduced and
the soldier’s overall load is increased. Short barrel 7.62 x 51 mm weapons have substantial
muzzle flash and blast, along with reduced terminal performance. 7.62 mm magazines require
different size pouches than current M4/M16 LBE. In addition, several recent 7.62 mm weapon
systems have not proven reliable or durable when subjected to combat conditions.
 Note: The JSWB-IPT discovered
that Lake City manufactured TWO
7.62 x 51 mm different types of M80 FMJ over the
147 gr M80 FMJ last several
(copper jacket) decades. LC does NOT distinctly
at 2850 f/s label the different M80 FMJ
projectiles and the only way to tell
them apart is to use a magnet

Note: Steel jacket

7.62 x 51 mm M80 FMJ fragments down to 2800 f/s, f/s,
147 gr M80 FMJ at which point it begins to perform just
(steel jacket) like M80 copper jacket FMJ illustrated
at 2850 f/s above

Note: M118LR offers very

inconsistent terminal performance--
sometimes fragmenting as shown,
7.62 x 51 mm but other times penetrating deeply
175 gr M118LR before yawing without
SMK OTM fragmentation. In
at 2655 f/s addition, M118LR tends to have poor
performance against intermediate
barriers, especially auto windshields
centimeters penetration

10 20 30 40 50 60 70
 7.62 x 39 mm
120.5 gr M43 PS FMJ
(steel core)
at 2340 f/s

7.62 x 51 mm
155 gr TSWG
Hornady OTM
at 2850 f/s

7.62 x 39 mm
123 gr M67 FMJ
(lead core)
at 2300 f/s

7.62 x 51 mm
165 gr ATK Tactical
(barrier blind)
at 2675 f/s
centimeters penetration

10 20 30 40 50 60
 How Can the U.S. Military Field More Effective Ammunition?
The most expeditious solution to improve terminal
performance for current 5.56 mm carbines is to abandon
M855 and adopt a consistent performing “Barrier Blind”
combat load specifically designed for carbine use as the
5.56 mm 62 gr M855
standard issue U.S. military 5.56 mm ammunition.

The ideal answer to upgrade current weapons and the

clear choice for any new assault rifle is to adopt an 5.56 mm 77 gr TOTM
intermediate caliber like the 6.8 mm, as this has proven to
be the most efficient & effective choice in weapons with
barrels 16” and shorter.

The final alternative is to field an improved 7.62 mm 6.8 mm 115 gr OTM

based system although for this to be of benefit,
ammunition with performance dramatically superior to
M80 ball, such as the TSWG 155 gr OTM or preferably, a
7.62 x 51 mm 155 gr OTM
new barrier blind load, needs to be standard issue.

NOTE: Current M995/M993 AP availability is too limited, especially for rifle and
carbine use. It is critical to ensure that effective AP ammo is readily available on
stripper clips for use in carbines & rifles, for ALL personnel potentially engaging in
combat, just like GI’s had available for their M1 Garands and BAR’s in WWII.
Abundant AP ammo availability may prove critical in potential future conflicts
against modern, well equipped opponents wearing advanced body armor.
 More than 100 years later, it may be time for Congress and the President to re-evaluate the
outmoded and archaic 1899 Hague Convention's prohibition against routine combat use of the
standard deforming ammunition commonly used by LE personnel. The Hague Convention’s
guidelines are no longer relevant for today’s urban battlefield with its close intermixing of innocent
civilians and irregular combatants.

The U.S. is not a party to the 1899 Hague treaty, but has complied with it in international armed
conflict; as a result, the majority of U.S. military personnel are limited to using FMJ ammunition in
combat. It is patently ludicrous to conclude that incapacitating dangerous opponents in combat
while using the same deforming bullets legally relied on daily by LE agencies is somehow
inhumane and unlawful, while wounding or killing the same enemy using much more powerful
destructive ordnance such as grenades, mines, mortars, artillery, rockets, bombs, CBU’s, FAE’s,
and thermobarics is approved and condoned. This is neither logical nor just and in fact does
nothing to limit the severity of battlefield casualties.

In many respects, the use of deforming LE type ammunition during modern combat is far more
humane, as accurate and effective ammunition reduces the need for multiple shots--decreasing the
chance of shots missing the intended opponent and striking innocent civilians. Deforming
projectiles also mitigate the potential of innocent bystanders getting hit by bullets which first
perforate the target They may also reduce the number of times a dangerous opponent must be
shot, potentially limiting the amount of surgical intervention needed to control hemorrhage.

It is time to move beyond the illogical prohibitions regarding modern deforming small arms
projectiles in the antiquated 1899 Hague Convention and authorize all U.S. military personnel to
routinely field the same deforming ammunition used daily by American LE officers, as it has
consistently proven to be efficacious in rapidly stopping hostile actions by violent opponents and
highly effective at protecting both friendly forces and innocent civilians.
Time for a Change
US “Incremental”
Small Arms Fielding –
Failures and Solutions

Part I - Small Arms

by Jim Schatz
052108
1
 Introduction
• 2-part Presentation – Q&A’s after Part II
- Part I – Small Arms – Jim Schatz
- Part II – Ammunition – Dr. Gary Roberts

• All parts “stand-alone” – author prepared

• Historic “Snap Shot” look at complex issues.

Insufficient time available for a detailed look.
Full briefing available on request.

• Part I – Excess Data for future reference 2

 Purpose
• To create a national awareness and dialogue on
serious small arms issues for US war fighters
• Not to cast blame
• To breach the deeply ingrained “institutional
resistance” to “incremental” change
• To affect positive, permanent change now
- Current small arms and ammunition
- In P&P to prevent repeated failures
• To persuade “the system” to test incrementally
superior COTS small arms systems today!
Pertains to more than just the one weapon type!
3
 Goal

To find, test and field

the best small arms
and ammunition available
to the American war fighter
today and always!
4
 Qualifications – Jim Schatz
• User: 11B – 82nd Airborne Division
• Trainer: US Army Marksmanship Unit
• Provider: 22+ years to the US Government, war fighter
- Logistical Support
- Contracts
- Fielding
• Developer: HK416, M1014, USP, MP5/10, others
• Student: Of small arms since age ten
• Supporter: Of the end user
No direct affiliation with firearms or ammo makers.
Not the “lone voice” on this issue! One of many. 5
 Caveats
• Not all services, organizations are the same

• The larger the organization, the less they support the

true needs of the end user

• There are well intentioned people trying to do the right

thing for the war fighter but are often smothered by
entrenched bureaucracy

• Specific weapons, names, organizations omitted

• All data and claims supported by reference materials,

public domain info and/or first hand knowledge 6
 Definitions – Part I
• “War Fighters” “End Users” – current US ground
combatants who engage the enemy with small arms

• “Select US Units” – Public domain. See “Army Times”

• The “System” – DoD organizations tasked weapons

acquisition, testing, fielding and logistical support of
US DoD small arms and ammunition. Contacted by
author for comment. Included herein where possible.

• “US Standard” – current issue

7
 Definitions – Part I
• “Incremental” Improvements
- The “90% solution”
- Available as COTS/NDI, modified COTS

- Significant advantages for the end user!

> Reliability: 7X that of US standard
> Service Life: 3 – 4X that of US standard
> Improved Accuracy: 30-50% increase
> Safety: OTB (2 vs. 6 sec. drain time), Increased
(60%+) Cook Off (210-240 vs. 120-150 rounds),
SBFA (catch live projectiles during blank firing)
> Weight Reduction
8
 Definitions – Part I
• “Incremental” Improvements (cont.)
- Significant advantages for the end user
> Modularity, User Configurable, Controls: (SCAR,
XM8, USP)
> Parts Commonality: 82% between 5.56mm, 6.8mm
and 7.62mm (SCAR)
> Reduced Maintenance (user, maintainer): 72% less
cleaning time (any Op Rod system)
> Reduced Procurement Costs: (complete weapons,
barrels, piece parts)
> Reduced Life Cycle Costs: 45-75% 9
 Prime Example: Op Rod “No Brainer”

• Operating Rod Gas Systems deemed superior

- Fielded with Select US Units and soon(?) USSOCOM

- Fielded with OGA’s and Foreign Friendly nations
- NLT 17 manufacturers offer op rod AR’s since 2004
- NLT 2 available from current carbine producer
- Superior performance in SCAR L, XM8, HK416 and
ATEC Extreme Dust test (4 and 7X better)
- Deemed superior by SME’s, experts, AR-15
designer

Yet the system still plans to release the current direct

gas system carbine TDP for recompete in June 2009!
10
 Prime Example:
Op Rod “No Brainer” (cont.)
• The system presently has no mechanism or
policy that automatically and regularly
evaluates, in a detailed fashion and against
current legacy weapons, available and
emerging superior COTS, OGA, threat and
foreign friendly incremental small arms
innovations.

Requirements are being written and lucrative

multi-year procurements are being made
without considering/including state-of-the-art
and available incremental improvements! 11
 Incremental vs. “Leap Ahead”
• Ground combatants still kill the enemy with KE
mechanisms (bullets, fragments) that must be:
- Accurately aimed and delivered to the target by
skilled operators (even AB munitions and LRF’s)
- From belt buckle distance to MER
- Same for all – Conventional, SOF, enemy

• The last “leap ahead” advancement in small arms –

14 century “Hand Cannon” (first KE firearm)

• The last substantial US “incremental” advancement in

small arms was America’s first Assault Rifle the AR-
15/M16 more than four decades ago! 12
 “Leap Ahead”
“Leap Ahead” =
• Looking past available incremental advantages
for the war fighter
• Incremental weapons stagnation NLT $430M
• Increased risk to the end user spent
• Decay in US small arms ingenuity since 1980
• Increased cost to tax payers alone!
• Increased threat capabilities
• Irreversible damage to the American
small arms industry
• Loss of respect for the US small arms system 13
At Stake

14
 ”Most of the boots on the ground in
OEF/OIF will be the first to tell you that
the enemy has no respect for our war
fighters in a head-to-head confrontation
while maneuvering with
his individual weapon.
An enemy who does not respect a Soldier’s
ability to deliver pain or death will always
bring the fight directly to the Soldier,
at belt buckle distance.”
MSG Steve Holland – 5th Special Forces Group (ABN)
30 year Army veteran, NDIA Hathcock Award Recipient
15
 At Stake
• SGT Peralas – B Co. 2/504 PIR 82nd Abn Div
Afghanistan April 2005 – March 2006 (1)
“I saw first hand what happens when your weapon jams up
because of harsh environments we have to call home here.
An 18B weapons sergeant was shot in the face due directly
to his weapon jamming. I just cant believe that after things
like this happen, the Army is still buying more (weapons).”

• 507th Maintenance Company (PFC Jessica Lynch)

An Nasiriyah, Iraq – 23 March, 2003 (2)
- 33 soldiers ambushed by Iraqi troops
- 11 KIA, 2 WIA, 6 POW’s
PFC Patrick Miller – Silver Star recipient.
Repeated rifle failures drove him to surrender.
Most weapons failed.
16
 At Stake (cont.)
• SSG Jason Fetty – US Army Reserve – Silver Star recipient
Khost, Afghanistan – February 2007 (3)
“Staff Sgt. Fetty fired into his (suicide bomber) lower legs, then his
kneecaps. He stood back up, even though I gave him a crippling
wound”. “He got back up and tried to come at me again”. “He shot
again at the man’s stomach”. “I abandoned all hopes of killing the
guy before he would explode”. “The blast came as he hit the
ground, peppering him with shrapnel in the face, leg and ankle.”

• MSG Anthony Pryor – 5th SFG (ABN) – Silver Star recipient

Afghanistan mountains – 23 January 2002 (4)
“…Pryor snapped his gun around and shot the terrorist at point blank range with two
rounds of 5.56. The man crumpled.” “So I went left to right, indexed down and shot
those (two more) guys”. “What he thought were their corpses sagged lifelessly to
the floor”. “I realized that I was halfway through my magazine, so I started to
change magazines. Then I felt something behind me, and thought it was one of my
teammates…”. “The blow came suddenly. With stunning power.” “He heard a
noise, looked over and saw the ghostly apparition of the two men he
had shot clamber back to their feet, fumbling for their weapons”. 17
 At Stake (cont.)
• CPT Nate Self
Ranger Regiment –
Silver Star recipient
Shah-I-Kot Mountains,
Afghanistan Cleaning
4 March, 2002 (5) Rod taped
to an M16
“Once behind cover, Self tried to fire again, Rifle
but his weapon jammed.” “I pulled my
charging handle back, and there was a Vietnam 1966
round stuck in the chamber.” Like the rest
of his men, Self always carried a cleaning rod zip tied to the side
of his weapon in case it failed to extract a round from the
Chamber.” “I started to knock the round out by pushing the rod
down the barrel, and it broke off. There was nothing I could with
18
it after that.”
The Hidden Truth

19
 The “Smoking Gun” – CNAC Survey
• CNA “Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms
in Combat” Study - December 2006 (6)
CRM D0015259.A2/Final - Sara M. Russell
Center for Naval Analysis Corporation
4825 Mark Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22311-1850
Found at:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

• Army Sponsored – Never published. Survey author told not to

release information.

• 2,607 surveys taken from OIF/OEF veterans within 12 months of

their return from theater. 20
 CNAC Survey (cont.)
Page 17 – % of Weapon Stoppages

21
 CNAC Survey (cont.)
Page 17 – % of Weapon Stoppages (cont.)
a. These numbers reflect the response from the 541
(21 percent) of soldiers who experienced a weapon
stoppage while engaging the enemy in theater.

Small Impact – Ability to engage target with weapon

after performing immediate or remedial action to clear
the stoppage.
Handgun – 62%
Carbine – 82%
Rifle – 80%
SAW – 59% 22
 CNAC Survey (cont.)
Page 18 – Impact of Weapon Stoppages

23
 CNAC Survey (cont.)
Page 18 – Impact of Weapon Stoppages (cont.)

Large Impact – Inability to engage target with weapon

during a significant portion or entire firefight
after performing immediate action
or remedial action to clear the stoppage.

Handgun – 38 %
Carbine – 18%
Rifle – 20%
SAW – 41%
29.25% Average! 24
 CNAC Survey (cont.)
• While quick to ask the soldiers if they were “satisfied
with their weapons”(78% positive, but with a limited
soldier point of reference), the survey never asked
those who reported stoppages in firefights:
- Did injuries or deaths result?
- Was the mission compromised as a result?
- Did the enemy escape or threaten friendly
forces as a result?
Any formal process for the
end user to report weapon failures
is unknown to the end users!
25
 CNAC Survey (cont.)
• 544 weapon stoppages reported out of the 2607
surveys collected – a 21% average failure rate
• A full one-fifth of soldiers placed at risk due to weapon
failures while engaging the enemy! How many
fatalities resulted?
• Official Army News Release 29 May, 2007: “Soldiers
reported overwhelming satisfaction with their
(weapon)!” (7)

System leadership terms soldier reports “emperical”

How many soldiers today are carrying weapons
that will fail when called upon to perform? 21%? 26
 “This has been a sore point for me for some time.
Soldier's have no clue what else is out there. I can
tell you first hand from looking around where I work
everyday, those with (rifles) are the wretched refuse -
the non-"in" crowd. Those with (carbines)
are the cool troops.
Quite simply the (carbine) is so popular and desired
among the troops because it is so much handier to
carry around.
99% of the weapon time over here is lugging it from
place to place 24/7.
Make no mistake ease of carry is the reason most
Soldier's love their (carbines).”

27
US Army LTC (Infantry) – Iraq - May 2008
Our Aged Fleet

28
 “The United States military is in bad
shape because they’ve let these small
arms deteriorate to a point now where
the US is a superpower only when it
fights in a naval or an air battle.
It’s not a superpower when
it fights a rifle battle.”
Mr. James Sullivan
2001 NDIA Chinn Award Recipient
Designer: AR-15/M16, Stoner 63, Ultimax 100,
Mini 14, Beta Magazine
29
The Cause – Our Aged Fleet

30
 The “Big 8” – Showing their Age

Average: 35 All eight weapons

Average: 28 Without M2HB
Average: 26 Without M2HB and M203
Average: 23 Without M2HB, M203, M16

• Trickle Down” effect. What the system buys often ends up in:
- All branches of our military
- US State Department/Embassy security
- OGA’s (federal law enforcement, DOE, NRC, FBP, other)
- State and Local law enforcement
- Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
31
 Small Arms “Disconnect”
• While US small arms remain fundamentally
unchanged in regards to performance, the
same does not apply to other and often more
costly (3-8 X) equipment items.

• Behind water and rations, small arms rank third

as the most important piece of individual
equipment to the war fighter. Yet we fight
today with on average Vietnam-age small arms
and ammunition. Do we have the best
available? Is there better out there? How will
we know if we don’t look? Others have. 32
 Small Arms “Disconnect” (cont.)
• Night Fighting Equipment 20 years Ago 2008
• Helmets and suspension
• Load bearing equipment
• Uniforms, boots, gloves
• Body Armor
• Eye, Ear Protection
• Rations, water carriers
• Communications gear
• Cold/wet weather gear
• First Aid pack, gas masks
• Anti-tank weapons Weapons designed in the 1960’s, or earlier! 33
 “We buy new laptop computers every
few years across the gamut,
so couldn’t we do the same for our single
most important piece of equipment?
Are the lives of those in our most elite units
of any more value than the lives of those
individuals who drive trucks on the
battlefield, who purify water,
who cook our grits?”

Major Chaz W. Bowser

Former Weapons/SCAR Combat Developer
US Army Special Operations Command
34
 System “Fast Track” Fielding
Item Years in Pipeline Status

● COTS XM26 MASS > 10 FUE FY09 (14)

● COTS XM320 GLM > 4* FUE 2QFY09 (15)

● COTS XM110 SASS > 2** FUE CY08

● M240E6 > 11 FUE 3QFY10

● OICW/XM25 > 17 Pending

● OCSW/XM307/312 > 13 Pending

* Since contract award (05/05) ** Since RFP release (03/06)

35
Success Stories

36
The German Success Story

37
 The Answer – Incremental Fielding

German small arms successes all since 1994

• 10 new (of 13) small arms fielded
• 10 new weapon capabilities fielded
• 2 unique capabilities (1st general issue PDW)
• 6 new calibers fielded
• Worlds most reliable op rod carbine fielded
• Family of rifles/carbines/LSW fielded
• Lower per capita defense budget than the US
and most of Europe
• Similar incremental success in UK, Spain, Norway,
Canada, Mexico, Turkey, China, Russia, elsewhere. 38
 US SOF Success Story

• User driven, user tested, user selected

• Even faster fielding model in Select US Units 39
 Select US Unit Success
• Have replaced 7/8 US standard weapons with
incrementally superior COTS weapons – 90% solution
- In near term (< 2 years)
- Few if any R&D dollars spent – low risk to vendors
- Advanced and unique capabilities fielded – ALL COTS!
> FN Minimi before M249
> MAG58 before M240 Most fielded
with limited
> MK19 in Navy Spec War in 1960’s
US Govt R&D
> .50 caliber Sniper Weapons before M107
spending, if
> SR-25 before M110 any!
> AG416 before XM320
> .40 S&W caliber handguns years before JCP/CP/MHS
> PDW caliber weapons and ammo
> HK416/417, GMG, SCAR/EGLM, others 40
 Select US Unit Success (cont.)
• Also uniforms, visual augmentation, protective gear,
etc.

• Model small arms acquisition that can and should be

replicated for all US military war fighters ASAP!
- User driven, tested, selected
- Realistic requirements!
- Pushing the envelope of COTS
- Less cost to the tax payer
- Enhanced war fighter confidence, safety,
survivability
41
 Threat Successes

Russian AN-94 Chinese QBZ-95 Family of Weapons

“Shifted Pulse” 5.8x42mm Superior cartridge/bull pup
Assault Rifle ammunition performance.
5.45x39mm First fielded in 1998.
pH doubled @ 1800 rpm ROF Russian GSh-18 Armor
In limited production and Piercing Semi-
fielding since 2001. Being automatic Pistol.
developed in 7.62x39mm. 9x19mm PBP.
First fielded in 2000.
The System has nothing Penetrates 8mm mild
that competes with these steel or Class III body
weapon capabilities! armor at 20 meters. 42
 Threat Successes (cont.)

Iranian KH2002 Bull pup Assault Rifle

5.56x45mm First fielded in 2004.
Increased terminal effects due to
bull pup MV increase.

Russian SR-1 Gyurza Armor

Piercing Semi-automatic Pistol
9x21mm SP-10, SP11, SP-12 Adopted
in 2003. Penetrates 2.8mm Titanium Russian “VSSK” Silenced Sniper Rifle
and 30 layers Kevlar at 100 meters. 12.7mm Special Subsonic
First fielded in 2002.
Defeats 16mm steel plate at 200 meters.
US NIJ Class III at 100 meters.

The System has nothing that competes

with these weapon capabilities! 43
 A Long, Sad
History of Ignoring
the War Fighter

44
 More of the Same Shame
• Current “dysfunction”
reoccurs @ every 30-50 years
• Top Driven, enabled
• War fighter ignored
• Incremental advancements
ignored
• Required reading: “Misfire”
The history of how American small arms have failed our
military” By William H. Hallahan. Available from amazon.com
Summary available. Send email to presenter.
45
 More of the same (cont.)
●Always results from a system/individuals unwillingness to address
the specific requests of the war fighter!
● Requires direct media, SECWAR/DEF, Congressional, POUS
intervention to remedy.
- 1777 – “US Ordnance Corps” founded at Springfield, MA
- 1854 - Franklin Piece – restored civilian control of armories.
- Abraham Lincoln twice (1861 – Sent for Union arms from
Europe, 1863 – pushed for Spencer carbines)
- 1901 – Teddy Roosevelt – forced leadership change at
Springfield Armory
- 1914 – SECWAR Baker orders complete overhaul of
“Ordnance Bureau”
- 1916 – Woodrow Wilson Presidential campaign (Lewis Gun
controversy)
- 1962 - John F. Kennedy – direct involvement in AR-15 fielding
- 1967 - US “Ordnance Department” disbanded/ restructured by
SECDEF McNamara after stalling on AR-15 production
46
 More of the same –TODAY!
• We are at that time in history again!
- Our small arms are aged and no longer state-of-the-art.
- Troops and Commanders are not getting what
they are asking for.
- Decisions on small arms are happening far from
the front lines.
- Superior weapons are being taken from troops
by those unqualified to do so (AWG).
- Limited funds are being squandered on
useless small arms “ventures.”
- The system irrationally and irresponsibly hides facts
and then fights any and all changes.
- With few exceptions the best new small arms are coming
from foreign sources.
- Weapons are failing in combat and lives have been placed
47
at jeopardy as a result!
 American Revolutionary War
(1775 – 1783)
• American forces armed with muzzle loading
British “Brown Bess” and “Charleville model
1763 Muskets” (2 shots per minute, unrifled
bore)
• Breech-loading “Ferguson Rifle” demonstrated
4-6 shots per minute during 27 April, 1776 demo
in England. 200 man British unit formed and
excelled against a much larger force at the
Battle of Brandywine, Sept. 1777.
Lesson forgotten by the US Ordnance Corps
after the war’s end!
48
 War of 1812
(1812 to 1814/15)
• 1811 – John Hall invents breech-loading “rifle” with:
- Rifled bore for increased (2-3 times) range and
accuracy over muskets
- Interchangeable parts (versus hand fitted which
was the norm)
- Was deemed “superior by every other kind
of small arm” by US Army Rifle Test Board.

• America enters another war with the Charleville

model 1763 Muskets (2 shots per minute, unrifled
bore) 36 years after the British had proven the
breech-loading Ferguson Rifle superior in battle!
49
 Missed opportunities
• 1816 – All-weather percussion cap invented and first used
in Europe. First field in the US 26 years later in 1842!
• 1827 – Congress directs SECWAR to investigate the
failure of the US Ordnance Corps to manufacture and field
a breech-loading rifle 16 years after the Hall Rifle was
offered and 50 years after the Ferguson first killed
Americans in 1777!
• 1836 – Repeating rifles from Hall tested again, along with
samples from Cochran, Colt and Hackett. Hall rifle judged
best. US Ordnance Corps opined “the complex
mechanism of breech-loading weapons deranges and
perplexes the soldier.”
• 1840 – First bolt-action “Dreyse Needle Gun” repeating
rifle designed and fielded in Germany.
50
 More Missed Opportunities

• 1841 – Muzzle-loading US Charleville

musket turns 80, still in US Army service!

• 1845 – US Army goes to war against

Mexico, mostly armed with muzzle-
loading US percussion cap (not all-
weather cap) rifles 29 years after Europe
first used all-weather percussion caps!
51
 American Civil War
(1861 – 1865)
• Confederate Calvary used mostly Hall model 1843 breech-
loading rifles. Union forces fought with mostly Springfield
model 1855 muzzle-loaders.
• Henry, Marsh and Sharps rifles mostly ignored by the US
Ordnance Corps. Experts believe they could have shortened
the war by giving the Union troops superior firepower.
- Henry – Tube-fed, lever-action repeater firing copper-
cased cartridges (>15 rpm).
- Marsh – Converted Springfield model 1855 with trap-door
(6-8 rpm).
- Spencer model 1860 – 7-shot, tube-fed, lever-action,
metallic cartridges (21 rpm)
- Sharps – Single-shot, breech-loader, paper/linen
cartridges (8-10 rpm). Personally tested by President
Lincoln himself – summer 1861. Chief of Ordnance
General Ripley repeatedly and for years defied the
President’s direction to test and field a repeating rifle!52
 More of the same
• 1863 (24 June) - Commanding Officer Wilder’s “Lightning
Brigade”, Union Infantry, at Union Gap battle, armed with
Spencer repeaters. Out numbered 4/1 by Bushrod
Johnson’s confederate unit. Four confederate attacks, all
repelled by the Spencers. Wilder lost 51, Johnson 156.
US Ordnance Corps refused to provide the requested
Spencers. Wilder got promissory notes for $35 from each
of his men, borrowed the money from a bank and
purchased the Spencers direct from the factory in Boston.
After the battle the War Department reimbursed the troops
for their Spencers!

• 1865 – Springfield Armory Rifle Board Field Trails – 108

rifle models submitted, including 10 repeaters and 10 bolt
actions. The board “selected” the single-shot Springfield
model 1873 trap-door rifle!
53
 1866 - Indian Uprisings Begin

• 1871 – German Mauser Company develops model 71 bolt-

action repeating rifle, later redesigned with a clip-
chargeable internal magazine.

• 1875 – Last of the repeating rifles pulled from service by

the US Ordnance Corps.

• 15 June, 1876 – General George Armstrong Custer and

650 Calvary armed with single-shot Springfield model
1873 trap-door rifles (Custer left behind 2 Gatling guns)
ride up the Rosebud river to the mouth of the Little Big
Horn valley to 1,500 Sioux waiting with Henry, Spencers
and Winchester repeaters. All 650 soldiers died!
54
 More Missed Opportunities
• 1887 – First Maxim Machine Guns (“Devils Paintbrush”)
appear and are quickly adopted by the British, Russians,
Turkey, many others. Used with devastating effect by the
Germans against the British in 1899 during the Boer War
and during the Russo-Jap War in 1904-05, 27 years before
World War I began.
• 1888 – US Ordnance Corps tests and rejects the Maxim
Machine Gun!
• 1890 – 1st model Springfield Trap-door single-shot rifle,
second longest serving US service rifle (besides the AR-
15/M16/M4 @ 43 years) retired from service after 25 years:
- 50 years after the first bolt-action repeater was
fielded in Germany!
- 47 years after the first Hall repeater was designed!
55
 More Missed Opportunities
• 1891 – US Army Ordnance Corps Rifle Board
solicits industry for new rifles for trails. Not one
US design submitted!
• 1892 – US adopts Danish Krag-Jorgensen with
single-load chamber for the .30-40 Krag with
round nose projectile, after 5 reworks! Most
every European country turned it down due to
its weak design and magazine type!
• 1898 (1 July) – Battle of San Juan Hill, Cuba
5,000 Americans armed with Krag’s engage 700
Spaniards armed with 7mm Mauser bolt-actions
firing smokeless-powder “spitzer” bullets.
1,300 Americans died!
56
 First World War (1914-1918)
● 1901 – Browning Machine Guns and the BAR offered to
US Ordnance Chief General Crozier. Not used until 1918,
17 years later and months before the wars end!

• Regardless of the brilliance of US-born small arms

designers (Browning, Lewis, Maxim, etc.)
the US entered WWI with:
- Unreliable French Benet-Mercie M1909 and
Chauchat (“Show-Shaw”) machine guns
- British P14/17 rifles

● 1916 – The US had still not formally selected a machine

gun; 29 years after the first Maxims were already killing
masses on battlefields all over the world! 57
 Missed “Medium Caliber “Opportunity –
Top Driven Mistakes
• 1918 – 1st model John Cantius Garand semi-auto rifle
developed.
• 1918 – J. D. Petersen develops .276 Pedersen cartridge
and automatic rifle – 42% less recoil than .30 caliber
rifle/cartridge.
• 1928 – Infantry Board (30 April) and “Semi-auto Rifle
Board” (July) recommends replacing .30 caliber M1903
bolt-action with .276 caliber, 125 grain bullet firing auto-
rifle.
• 21 Feb. 1929 - The .276 cartridge is approved for issue.
• 1932 – Semi-auto Rifle Boards 3rd test – the .276 caliber
semi-auto Garand T3E2 rifle is selected!
• 1932 - Army COS Douglas McArthur reverses decision on
T3E2 fielding after 13 years of testing!
• Nov. 1935 – 9.5 pound .30 caliber M1 Garand adopted
32 years after the 1903 bolt-action rifle was adopted! 58
 Second World War
(1939-1945)
• 1 Sept. 1939 – Germany invades Poland – US is producing 100
M1 Garands per day. The first time in history where the US
Army has the lead with a service rifle going into a war.
ALL because of John Garand’s tireless efforts and genius!

• Congress repays John Garand by dropping him from the

Armory payroll (a whopping $3600 a year savings to Uncle
Sam!)

• 1942 – Germany develops the first assault rifle; MKb42. Fires a

new 7.92x33mm Kurz Patrone “intermediate” cartridge at 400
rounds/minute. Lighter, cheaper and easier to make, less
recoil, 2-3X combat load, detachable 30-rd magazine, select
fire, straight line stock design.
- 7 years before the first AK-47 is fielded!
- 15 years before the US M14 is fielded!
- 20 years before the first AR-15’s were issued in Vietnam! 59
 German Successes Ignored
• Nov. 1992 – German “Kampfgruppe Scherer”
surrounded by Russian forces on the Russian
front. German Luftwaffe drops MKb42’s to the
vastly outnumbered unit. German unit breaks
out to fight another day. Credit given to the use
of the MKb42 in its first appearance on the
battlefield.
• 1943-1944 – By this time Germany was
producing 400K MP44 Assault Rifles per year.
Given one more year the entire German military
could have been armed with MP44’s.
• 1945 – American Ordnance experts at Mauser
plant – collect drawings and samples of MP44,
Gerot 03 and 06 rifles. 60
 Hard Lessons Learned –
Anyone Listening?
• 1947 – WWII study by General S.L.A. Marshall “Men
against Fire” released. Gen. Marshall writes “most
officers had little or no knowledge of how their men
fought individually that when interviewed knew that
as few as 15/100 were doing all the fighting”. “The
least knowledgeable would be the highest ranking
men in the Army and in the place most distant from
the battlefield: the Pentagon.”
• 1947 – British “Beeching” report is published.
Maximum effective rifle cartridge range in combat is
600 yards. .28 caliber deemed ideal (recoil, lethality,
weight). 18 years after the US develops, approves
and then mothballs the .276 Pederson cartridge and
rifle! 61
 The Russians were Listening
• 1947 – Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov
designs the first “Avtomat Kalashnikov” which
was to become the AK-47; the most commonly
encountered assault rifle on the planet.
Estimates are that more than 9M AK’s have
been produced.

• 1949 – AK-47’s first fielded with Russian troops

13 years before the US issues its true first
assault rifle (the AR-15) to the USAF and 18
years before the AR-15/M16 is adopted by the
US Army! 62
 Korean Conflict (1950-1953)
• Beeching, Hall, Hitchman reports all agree on
the maximum effective range of small arms in
combat is NGT 300 meters (average 120 meters).
Mirrors wartime findings of Germans and
Russians that lead to the development and
successful fielding of the MP44 and AK-47.
• Yet in 1960 America fields the non-select fire
M14 rifle that fires a full-power .30 caliber
cartridge with excessive range and recoil and is
uncontrollable on full auto fire!
- 18 years after the MKb42 was fielded!
- 11 years after the AK-47 was fielded!
63
 Korean Conflict (cont.)
• 1953 – US forces 7.62x51mm cartridge on NATO.

• 19 Sept. 1958 – Infantry Board “CONARC” report finds

“AR-15 more reliable (compared to the M14) under
simulated combat conditions – which is a rifles most
essential attribute”. Second such official finding.

- COTS AR-15. Developed in 9 months.

Combat load 650 rounds. Weight 6.35 lbs. Select-fire.

- US Ordnance System M14. Developed in 12+ years.

Combat load 220 rounds. Weight 9.32 lbs.
Semi-automatic only (90% issued without full auto
selector switch). 64
 Vietnam Conflict
● 1958 - .258 caliber (between .22 and .30 caliber)
AR-15 proposed by US Army. Eugene Stoner
to design it. Cartridge never completed by US
Ordnance Department. Effort dropped.

● Nov. 1958 – Feb. 1959 – Full comparative tests

of AR-15 and M14. AR-15 far “out distances
the M14 in overall combat potential”. CDEC
personnel recommend early retirement of the
M14. Third such official finding.
65
 Vietnam Conflict (cont.)
● Feb. 1959 – General Taylor orders no
additional AR-15 purchases and full-scale
M14 production. 1st commercial contract
for M14’s is issued to Winchester.

● 1960 – First M14’s produced 3 years after

adoption!

● June 1960 – US Ordnance Dept. refuses to

retest AR-15 due to “the lack of any
military requirement for such an arm.” 66
 Vietnam Conflict (cont.)
● 27 Sept. 1962 – Charles Hitch (DOD
Comptroller) releases “Hitch Report”. AR-15
outclassed M14 in all areas. Production
cost/ease, performance, basic combat load.
M14 found inferior to M1 Garand and AK-47.
AR-15 firepower found advantageous for US
troops over AK-47.

● 15 May 1963 – Springfield Armory changes

rifling twist from 1/14” to 1/12” to increase
helmet penetration but which reduces also
lethality by 40%, just in time for Vietnam! 67
 Vietnam Conflict (cont.)
● March 1964 – USAF receives first “M16’s”.
May 26, 1964 – US Army receives first “M16E1’s”.
NO CLEANING KITS ISSUED! (And would not
be in quantity for almost 2 years!)

● 5THWARNING (of 6) – Winter 1965/66 - Fort Ord

tests of M16, AK-47 and M14. Report states:
“3 years of development (by the Ordnance
Dept. of the M16) has done more harm than
good.” 68
 Vietnam Conflict (cont.)
• Oct. 1966 – Reports of M16 failures in battle –
troops dying!

• 2 years have passed since problems were

identified and cleaning kits recommended!

• 1966 - American troops order “Dri-Slide”

lubricant from family and friends in the US.
Reports of 70% failures to extract in M16’s
found with dead US GI’s!

• 32 of 80 USMC rifles failed in combat.

69
 Vietnam Conflict (cont.)
● Fall 1969 – US Army formally adopts M16A1 and
5.56x45mm cartridge, and for use in Europe.
- 27 years after the German MKb42 was first fielded!
- 20 years after the first AK-47 was fielded!
- 15 years after the AR-15 was first developed by
Armalite!
- 11 years after the first successful US Army tests of
the AR-15!
- 8 years after the first USAF and CDTC requests for
AR-15’s!
- 6 years after official M16 production begins!
- 5 years after the first M16’s and M16E1’s were fielded
70
in Vietnam!
 Vietnam Conflict and Today
• 7 May – 10 Oct. 1967 - Ichord Congressional
Subcommittee formed to investigate M16 issues/combat
failures (Mirrors Congressional involvement today!)

- Chief of Ordnance COL Yount blames problems

on troop maintenance. (Like Today! 507th BN)
- Troops were told to “tape a cleaning rod to the
rifle and never leave a cartridge in the
chamber overnight!” (Like CPT Nate Self in 2002!)
- 89M rounds of ball powder were fired before the
Army acknowledged it was the primary cause of
stoppages in the M16. (Still used today!)
- Ichord Committee blames problems on the Ordnance
Department, specifically due to their failed AR-15
“conversion” to the M16. 71
 Post Vietnam
• 1982 - America adopts the worlds only national service
rifle without a fully automatic mode of fire (M16A2 w/
3rb only)

• 1985 – US adopts 9mm M9 Pistol to replace combat -

proven .45 ACP M1911A1 Pistol.
38% stoppages reported in combat (2006 CNAC Survey) (6)

• 1994/95 – US adopts the M240G/B to replace the M60.

6.2 pounds (24%) heavier. No other weapons tested.
The only weapons considered were those already in
the inventory!
72
 Post Vietnam (cont.)
• 1984 – “XM-4” Carbine Program initiated by the US
Army.

• 1986 – Army withdraws funding – USMC picks up

project.

• 1987 – USMC M4 Fielding Decision made

• 1989 – Army interest in M4 is renewed

• 1994 – 1st M4’s fielded in the US Army after 10 years!

73
 Post Vietnam (cont.)
• Today - US Service Rifle “dumbed down” to short-
barrel carbine length performance compromise by
carbine “pure fleeting”
- Reliability (2002 USMC test) (19)
- Max. Eff. Range (500 vs. 600 meters – point targets) (18)
- Muzzle Velocity (3050 vs. 2750 fps)
- Muzzle Energy (1765 vs. 1645 j)
- Accuracy
- Penetration
- Terminal Effects (150 m. max. with M855) (17)

Never before in US history has the rifle been fully

replaced with a carbine with front line combat units! 74
 For those who say this problem is “old news”

• Returning OIF Soldier Testimonials from 2008

- Easy to obtain, if you ask. The Army has no process

to collect shooting failure data!

- 7 failure accounts while in combat collected from 21

soldiers polled (33% - on par with CNAC survey), all
seasoned combat veterans, most with multiple tours
in OIF/OEF.

- Notice these are the enlisted men doing the fighting

and reporting the problems – those furthest from the
small arms decision making process! 75
 For those who say this problem
is “old news” (cont.)

• Returning OIF Soldier Testimonials from 2008

“During my deployment from Jan 07’ to March 08’ I had

numerous failures to extract with my XXX. One such
incident was during an engagement where we took
sniper fire. My extractor was only a few months old
but wouldn’t extract after about 20 rounds. I took
remedial action taking me out of the fight for about 3
minutes. Another time I tried to fire a controlled pair
for a warning shot and it did not extract the round
causing vehicles to get close to our formations”
SPC. B
76
 For those who say this problem
is “old news” (cont.)

• Returning OIF Soldier Testimonials from 2008

“In summertime, 2006, my XXX failed to extract/eject in

a firefight with the Taliban. The weapon had just
been through a thorough cleaning that morning. I
performed immediate action, cleared and reloaded,
the weapon fired one round and again, failed to
extract/eject. I repeated the process with the same
results during the duration of the firefight.”
CPL B.

77
 For those who say this problem is “old news”
(cont.)

• Returning OIF Soldier Testimonials from 2008

“While serving in Iraq on a Provincial Reconstruction team

security mission in and around the city of Tikrit my team was
perimeter security on the actual building itself. My team and I
moved to a guard tower outside the building to pull security.
While pulling security I noticed a man peeking around a corner
and looking in my general location. He did this once or twice
and on the third time I had already placed my weapon from
safe to semi and aimed my XXX at the corner. When he came
around holding his AK-47 we fired at each other simultan-
eously. I tried to pull a controlled pair but the round from the
first shot did not extract. After performing SPORTS on my
weapon the target was gone.”
SGT V.
78
Politics over Lives

79
 “The 110th Congress doesn’t even care.
They don’t care that the (weapon) has got
exactly the same problems that this thing
had in ’67. Back then people raised all
kinds of hell over it. The 110th Congress
doesn’t do a damn thing,
and those soldiers over there in
Iraq right now have exactly the
same problems with their (weapons)
in spite of the improved buffer.”
Mr. James Sullivan
2001 NDIA Chinn Award Recipient
Designer: AR-15/M16, Stoner 63,
Ultimax 100, Mini 14, Beta Magazine
80
 User requests ignored

● March 2004 - 3rd ID ONS for Integrated Modular

Assault Weapon System” – died with XM8!

● 2005 and 2006 – 10th SFG (A) CMNS for 10” Op

Rod Uppers – 2 requests - never acted upon!

● March 2007 - 1st SFG (A) Procurement for 84

10” Op Rod Uppers – cancelled by higher
headquarters due to “program conflict!”
81
 User requests ignored (cont.)

● 2006-Present - Urgent CMNS from 5th SFG for

6.8mm SPC caliber CQBR PMOD not acted on
by higher headquarter’s!

● 2005-Present - XXX DIV request for DM rifles.

No action to date!

● 2006-Present – Modular Handgun System

Program – held up by “system dysfunction”
for years!
82
 User requests ignored, and worse!

And Worse - December 2007

Army leadership directs that
superior HK416 carbines, in
use with zero issues/breakages
since August 2005 (and Glock
pistols) be removed from the
Asymmetric Warfare Group
Real Reason: Other
units asking for similar
Mission: Provide operational advisory assistance to
advanced capabilities! Army and Joint Force Commander to enhance the
combat effectiveness of the operating forces and
enable the defeat of asymmetric threats
83
EXCEPT FOT SMALL ARMS!
 User Request Process.
Death by a thousand cuts!
● TheEnd User/War Fighter requirement must navigate
an endless and often insurmountable maze of
bureaucracy to successfully realize an Urgent
Mission Need Statement.
- Unit
- BCT
- Division
- Corps
- Command
- Proponent
- DA
- Joint Services
And back again. Few survive!
84
 System R&D
“Dysfunction”

85
 “The fact of the matter is that technology
changes every 10 or 15 years and we
should be changing with it. And that has
not been our case. We have been sitting
on this thing for far too long.”
“Our bureaucracy failed our troops.”
“Holding a competition is the only way for
the Army to make sure soldiers still have
the best weapons available!”

GEN. Jack Keane – Former US Army VCOS

86
 System R&D Dysfunction
● Constant Shift in Direction

- Multiple/Micro Bullets, Flechettes - 1960’s, 1970’s

(Projects SALVO, SPIW)
Millions spent – nothing fielded!

- Flechettes, Caseless Ammunition – 1980’s

(Advanced Combat Rifle)
Started as caseless ammo experiment. Redirected
by CG change to 100% increase in pH over M16A2.
Forced Mutation. DOA!
$54M+ spent – nothing fielded!
87
 System R&D Dysfunction (cont.)
1984 - USAIC first briefs “Small Arms Master Plan”
10 legacy
weapons to be
replaced by 3
“Objective”
Weapons
(OICW, OCSW,
OPDW) (8)

24 years later.
Millions spent.
Nothing fielded!
Talk of next gen! 15 May 2002 JSSAP version pictured above 88
 System R&D Dysfunction (cont.)
- Shift to “Air Bursting/Counter Defilade” technology
OICW Program – Unrealistic requirements and
expectations (Semi-auto AB 20mm GL, FS/FCS,
detachable 5.56mm KE module @ 14 pds!)
Not supported by end user, SOF, industry
$207M spent over 17+ years (1991-2008).
Nothing fielded!

- OCSW Program – Failed attempt to field AB 25mm

crew-served weapon. Program “saves” through FCS
and Light weight .50 caliber Machine Gun initiatives.
$170M+ spent over 13+ years (1994-2007).
Nothing fielded!
89
 System R&D Dysfunction (cont.)
12 June, 1987
Twentieth Century
Fox Film Corporation
releases “Predator”
with wrist-mounted KE
system and shoulder-
mounted “plasma caster”

$18M spent!
31M rentals fielded!
90
 System R&D Dysfunction 2000-2001

JSSAP
“Autonomous
Seeker
Projectile” (9)

- Unrealistic
unobtainable science fiction based requirements.
- $8.6M actually planned for FY00-03 spending! 91
 System R&D Dysfunction 2002-2004
- XM8 Effort – 2002-2005 Good attempt at change!
> Sole-source manipulation of OICW contract.
> Project forced on the user proponent.
> Weapon highly favored by the war fighters.
> Abandoned due to political pressure.
$50M spent. Nothing fielded!

- Multiple Parallel US DoD Efforts since 2003

> ECR, PMOD, FCR, SCAR, XM8, CSC (HK416)
> 95% compatible requirements
> No joint cooperation
$M’s spent. Only HK416 fielded! (no USG R&D $ spent) 92
 System Dysfunction 2005-Present

● JSSAP LSAT Program

- Plastic cased ammunition and links. Doable if durable!

- Caseless Ammunition – same ammunition and chamber

sealing challenges/barriers as encountered during 20+
year G11 and ACR Programs. High risk! Little payoff
possible over plastic cased weight savings!

Transition to PM-SW @ 2012

FUE @ 2019
Can our troops afford to “hope” for an unlikely
technological breakthrough? (again!) 93
 System Dysfunction Today!
• In 2008 a representative from the advance
technology directorate of a major US military
service at a public event was quoted as having
said:

“XXX is looking for “tunable weapons,” which can adjust

from nonlethal to something more powerful. Like the
Star Wars phasers of science fiction, such a weapon
could presumably go from “Stun” to “Kill.” (16)

A statement like this is simply detachment from reality!

94
“Gun Shy” Industry

95
 “We have a broken process.
When you don’t have a requirement
and acquisition process with
a shared vision,
you are not going to get anything,
and you are going to waste a lot of money”

COL Robert Carpenter

Former Crew-Served Weapons PM
PM-Soldier Weapons
96
 False Start 1
● March 2005 – “OICW Increment I Family of Weapons”
solicitation released to industry.
- Closing date is November 2005
- Intended to replace M4, M16, M249 and select M9’s
- Full Rate Production Options of 134,500 weapons
- Family of Weapons “commonality” Concept flawed –
“games” LMG requirement at the cost of
performance
8 vendors respond they can meet/exceed specs

● October 2005 - DoD IG suspends OICW Increment I

RFP due to lack of required program documentation
and appropriate ACAT (Acquisition Category), weak
OICW ORD. (10) ARDEC cancels RFP! 97
 False Start 2 - 4 months later!
● Feb. 2006 – “Non-developmental Carbine” solicitation
W52H09-06-R-0195 released to industry
- 193,400 carbines worth approximately $295M
- Done to force down rising cost of US standard!

● 27 April, 2006 – RFP Cancelled by ASA(ALT)!

● Nov. 2006 – IG investigation - “Prematurely released”,

“bad business practice”, “wasted procurement
resources”, “engages industry for response to a
solicitation then cancels the competition”, “second
carbine solicitation that the Army cancelled within
one year”. Industry is understandably gun shy! 98
Army’s own data
supports end
user claims
99
“Everyone
in the
Army has
high
confidence
in this BG Mark Brown – PEO Soldier
after 4th place weapon finish
in Extreme Dust Test III
weapon”
100
 Proven Last – APG Dust Tests
● 3 “Extreme Dust Tests” conducted by ATEC/APG.

- Test 1 – January 2007

“Baseline Reliability and Dust Assessment”
- 9,836 stoppages in 60,000 rounds. (page 3-16)
1 stoppage every 6.1 rounds.

- Test 2 – June 2007 –

“Extreme Dust Test II” - Changes in Lubrication (increased)
678 stoppages in 60,000 rounds
1 stoppage every 89* rounds. (23) (*89 rd figure in contention)

- Test 3 – November 2007 – “Extreme Dust Test” (11) (12)

Included 3 modern op rod carbines as per Congress
XM8 – 1 stoppage every 472 rounds.
SCAR L – 1 stoppage every 266 rounds.
HK416 – 1 stoppage every 258 rounds.
1 stoppage every 68 rounds.**
3 test average less than two full magazines (54.4 rounds)! 101
 Proven Last –
APG Dust Tests (cont.)
**The US Standard had 296 more Class I and II
stoppages than all 3 op rod
guns combined.
Army’s response: “These
tests were conducted in
extreme conditions that
did not address reliability
in typical operational
conditions.” (13)
Ask those soldiers in the Army-
sponsored CNAC Soldier
survey who had stoppages in a
firefight if they agree! 102
STOPPAGES IN 60,000 ROUNDS FIRED PER SYSTEM
ATEC EXTREME DUST TEST III - 2007

3.77 X more reliable

3.85 X more reliable

6.95 X more reliable

103
 System Answer
● System Offers to look into:
- Hammer Forged Barrels
>Already used in 3 op rod guns tested!
- Improved Magazines
>Already used in 3 op rod guns tested!
>NSN 1005-01-520-5992 in the system since 2004!

● But we already knew this in 1990!

- USAMC “Independent Assessment of the 5.56mm
XXX” – June 1990
>Barrels last < 10K rd. service life (7K)
>298 of 538 failure to feed stoppages caused by
the magazine. 104
 System Dysfunction - Current
● After:
- Troubling 2006 CNAC Soldier Survey
- 3 Unsuccessful ATEC/APG Dust Tests
(mirrors that from CNAC Soldier survey reports)
- NLT $430M spent on so-called “Leap Ahead”
programs with nothing fielded
- Congressional involvement and media exposure
- Limited plans for superior replacements to the “Big 8”

● The Army:
- “Pure fleets” the US Standard (< range, accuracy, E, pH)
- Issues multiple, million dollar delivery orders
for more carbines (up to $525M), rifles, SAW’s, pistols, AGL’s,
M203 grenade launchers without conducting comparative tests!

● And states: “We are in a strategic pause.”

105
 Continues New Purchases
Army Times 2/19/07

● 6 April, 2007 – M4 Carbines - $50.8M

up to $375M planned + $150M for mods

● 3 August, 2007 – M249 SAW’s – up to 40,065 weapons

● 26 December, 2007 – M16A3/A4 Rifles - $49.6M (between two

vendors) 3rd vendor bid $117 less per rifle ($20M over life of
contract) – NO DEAL! You never made an M16A4!

● Additional MK19’s and M2HB’s ordered in 2007

Production maxed out!

● 2008 contract award for 25,403 M9 pistols

106
 The Cost
Argument
(Tail wagging the Dog!)

107
 System Dysfunction 2007

● GAO Report – 2007

- 72 DoD weapon programs $295B over budget and 21
months on average behind schedule. (20)
- R&D costs are 40% over budget
- $355B is planned for new weapon systems

● For the $430M spent on “Leap Ahead” Small Arms

efforts since 1980 we could have purchased:
- 238,908 SCAR-L’s @ $1800 each
- 330,756 new op rod rifles @ $1300 each
- 430,000 new op rod Upper Receivers @ $1000 each
108
 Sole Source Cost to the Tax Payer

SOLE-SOURCE WEAPON COST DURING WAR

● 40% increase in purchase price ($523.84 in 2001, $980.00 in 2005, $1169.48 in 2007)
(15) (22)

- During war time

- At increased order quantities (economies of scale?)
109
● 2.5 X the purchase price of the longer US Standard
 Sole Source Cost
to the Tax Payer (cont.)

SOLE-SOURCE BARREL COST DURING WAR

● 248% increase in purchase price ($74.91 in 2000 - $260.57 in 2007) (15)

- At increased order quantities (economies of scale?)
- During war time
● 140% higher purchase price compared to that of longer US Standard ($240 vs. $100)
● Proven superior COTS alternatives (3-4X service life) available for =/< purchase price 110
 Purchase Cost vs. Life Cycle Cost - Weapon

Item Unit Cost ÷ Service Life Cost (cents) X 20,000 rd. X Division
($) (1) (# rounds) per rd. fired Life Cycle Cost (18K) =
= Cost =
US Standard $1,000 6,000 (2) 17 3,400 $61,200,000
Weapon (Qty K’s)
Superior $1,425 24,000 (3) .06 1,200 $21,600,000
COTS (Q 1)
Weapon
Superior $1,800 35,000 (3) .05 1,000 $18,000,000
USG (Qty K’s)
Weapon
● Superior Weapons 3.4X less costly to maintain over projected 20K round service life.
● Superior weapons offer 67% lower life cycle costs.

● Costs do not include: Armorers repair time/cost/training, piece parts, replacement

effort for user, logistical burden, serial number accountability, operator safety,
confidence, survivability.
(1)
# rounds that can be fired before parts replacement. (2) US MIL SPEC (3) USG test data 111
Q = Quantity K = Thousands 1 = one
 Purchase Cost vs. Life Cycle Cost - Barrels
Item Unit Cost ÷ Service Life Cost (cents) X 20,000 rd. X Division
($) (1) (# rounds) per rd. fired Life Cycle Cost (18K) =
= Cost =
US Standard $243 6,000 (2) .04 800 $14,400,000
Weapon (Qty K’s)
Superior $475 24,000 (3) .02 400 $8,000,000
COTS (Q 1)
Weapon
Superior US $300 35,000 (3) .009 180 $3,600,000
Weapon (Qty K’s)

● Weapons using superior barrels are 1.8 - 4X less costly to maintain over 20K rounds.
● Superior Barrels offer 4 - 5.8X increased service life and 45 - 75% lower life cycle costs.
● Costs do not include: Armorers exchange time/cost/training, piece parts, test fire,
replacement effort for user, logistical burden, serial number accountability, operator
safety (OTB), confidence, survivability.
(1)
# rounds that can be fired before replacement. (2) US MIL SPEC (3) USG test data
Q = Quantity K = Thousands 1 = one 112
 Business Case Analysis
● 2 August, 2005 an Army (PM-SW) Business
Case Analysis determined that the US could
save $1.2B over the life of the system by
replacing the legacy carbine, rifle, SAW (# 1
urgent USAIC replacement priority at that time)
and select handguns with a “modular family of
weapons.”

● The Army projected $12M (2% of the cost of

procurement) would be spent to conduct the
competition.
No further action has been taken to date! 113
 Better Available Off-the-Shelf
At least one manufacturer has stated publicly
they would offer their superior combat proven
COTS op rod weapon far exceeding the MIL
SPEC’s of the current US issue weapon at prices
matching the US current contract price and can
begin producing and delivering no less
than 4,000 weapons per month
immediately after receipt of order…..
And the US is not interested?!?!
114
Every Problem
has a Solution

115
 # 1 – End User Absence
Small Arms Decisions are being made “too far
from the field” and end user by:

- GO’s, PEO’s, PM’s, Proponents, Retirees

that are not fighting with small arms!
- The system MUST support the specific
needs of the end user, NOT vice versa!
- The current Executive Agent for Small
Arms repeatedly fails or is too slow to react.
ANSWER: Adopt Select US Unit SOP! 116
 Where is the End User?
The guy on the ground at this
very moment carrying the weapon!

Where are the

Master
Gunners?

TRADOC Soldier as a System

Briefing dated 14 May 2003
117
 # 2 – Unrealistic Requirements
Stop chasing “Star Wars” (SAMP, OFW)

- What does US select/SOF purchase,

field? Combine efforts.
- Efforts must focus on obtainable goals.
- “Leap ahead” efforts divert focus and
funds from end user requirements.

ANSWER: Look to the future

but buy what works, and now. 118
 # 3 – Changes in Direction
Too many Changes, False Starts, Revisions

- ”User Small Arms Advisory Panel” (USAAP)

- Directs system on:

> Incremental Fielding Focus (1-3 years)
> Future Programs (3-5 years)
> R&D (5-10 years)
Answer: Form the USAAP now!
Answerable to Congress and SECDEF only!119
 USAAP
(User Small Arms Advisory Panel)
• User, US select unit Representation.
• Proven incremental fielding representation.
• Self-vetting. No PM’s, PEO’s, AO’s, other.
• Answerable only to Congress, SECDEF
• Directs, approves actions of system on:
- Current product performance
- New item testing
- Contract awards and extensions
- R&D program funding (current and new)
120
The system truly working for the end user!
 # 4 – Outdated MIL SPECS
US Small Arms Performance Specs (PS’s)
are outdated and force sole-source
procurement of outdated materials

- Must be revised every 3 years and for each new

contract based upon current state-of-the-art
performance
- New “best of breed” must be found and evaluated
regularly
- New PS’s must be written/approved by USAAP before
recompetes!
ANSWER: Update PS’s often
121
 # 5 – Remove JCID’s for Small Arms

The JCID’s process

is simply unworkable
for incremental and
timely small arms
fielding
- Delays fielding
- Hampers urgent
responses
- Drives up costs
- Creates programs versus solutions!
ANSWER: Dump JCID’s for Small Arms 122
 # 6 – System Support
The Small Arms Support System (Development,
Acquisition, Contracts, Logistics) must support
the direction/decisions of the end
user through the USAAP.

- Utilize the talents, facilities already in the system

- Stop chasing the Logistical Tail!
- The system works for the end user.
- More security for all by greater turnover of new
systems and system success

ANSWER: User/USAAP directs Support System

123
 # 7 – R&D Black Hole
Studies, Simulation and Modeling should not
replace regular incremental fielding

- Find and field the “90% solution”, and regularly

- Incremental fielding provides the greatest return
on investment
- Endless Multi-year Programs do not kill bad
guys! Nor do they protect the friendlies!
ANSWER: User/USAAP approves all new small
arms R&D programs
124
 # 8 – Promotion Suicide
Remove the “Yes Man” promotion rule
from small arms efforts

- Few AO’s, PM’s have small arms experience let alone

expertise

- Act on user/USAAP direction, not that of superiors

inexperienced with small arms who control a
subordinates future and push bad small arms
decisions
Then PM’s will become true “Action Officers”
ANSWER: Make the system answerable
to the User/USAAP 125
 # 9 – Joint Efforts
Very few combined efforts today in US Small
Arms development yet the basic use
of small arms is the same

- Combine Requirements, Interagency

Participation and Support
- Generate Realistic User/USAAP
Based Requirements for Near Term Fielding
- User/USAAP Selection a must!

ANSWER: Joint efforts will bring success if User

requirements are supported by the system
126
 # 10 – Contract Limits
No Small Arms Contract should exceed 6 years

Regular contract awards will:

- Generate more competition, innovation,
willingness to participate by non-traditional
vendors
- Keep unit prices low and quality high
- Will leverage emerging technology more often
- Will respond to ever changing warfare

ANSWER: Restrict contracts to maximum

of 6 years for same item from same vendor
127
 # 11 – Don’t Buy TDP’s
Most small arms production TDP’s are
usually outdated before contract end
and often even before they are received

- Especially in a “stimulated” small arms

competitive environment as described
above

ANSWER: Look for new superior products,

not yesterdays product drawings 128
 # 12 – Avoid Distractions
System developed alternatives (NSAC/NSATC)
seldom bring value to the war fighter

- Costly duplication of effort. A distraction.

- Must “pay to play” ($1000 + 10%)
- Would Messrs. Hall, Maxim, Browning, Lewis,
Thompson, Garand, Stoner, etc. have paid to
participate?

ANSWER: Focus the existing support system on

rapidly answering the needs of the End User
129
 # 13 – Limited Combat Evals
Use Limited Combat Evaluations by actual end
users to assess the effectiveness of proven
systems and capabilities

- Apply Select US Unit SOP

- Field at Company or BN level
- After mandatory safety testing
- After pre-deployment, New Equipment Training
by SME’s (SOF, contractor, etc.)

ANSWER: Let the Users and their Commanders

decide what works best on the battlefield
and against the enemy 130
 # 14 – “Up gun” Calibers
Reevaluate US self-imposed voluntary restrictions
on Ammunition and Projectile limitations for
Conventional US Forces
- Consider medium caliber for America’s
rifle/carbine and LMG
- Look at non-NATO calibers
- Look at Non-compliant “Land of Warfare”
approved projectiles (BTB, JSP, HP, etc.)
- Follow Select US Unit SOP, successes
- Develop an optimum weapon/ammo “system”

ANSWER: Adopt the very best in ammunition

and projectile technology 131
 15 # - Small Arms Funding
With greater success in small arms fielding
for the war fighter the system will:

- Be rewarded with additional funding for future

procurements and small arms efforts
- Stop being maligned and criticized
- Attract the best and brightest
- Better guarantee job and facility security
- Experience unparalleled support from Industry,
Congress and the American people

ANSWER: Field it and they will come.

132
 3-year Incremental Fielding Cycle

On a three-year cycle USAAP:

• Reviews (every 3rd year)
- USG and COTS System Performance and
Specifications, PIP’s, Threats, etc.
- R&D Programs (current, new)
• Tests (every 4th year)
- Solicits Industry for and tests
incrementally superior systems
• Contract Award (every 5th year) NTE 6 years
133
 3-year Incremental Fielding Cycle (cont.)
• Limited Combat Evaluations to prove out
system capabilities

• First fielding to high-use, front line units

• Keeps opponents guessing on US small arms

capabilities set while leveraging newly
emerging COTS capabilities

• Contractor-provided Logistical Support should

be leveraged as in the UK and Germany 134
 You may be part of the problem
• If you use words and phrases like:

- ”Backwards Compatibility”

- ”Too expensive to change”

- ”Meets Specs”

- ”Is good enough”

- ”Tactical Patience” - excuse for more of the same 135

 You may be part of the problem (cont.)

• If you:

- Cherish words like “Logistical Tail”, “Revolutionary”

and “Leap Ahead”

- Respond to urgent user requirements by looking at a

calendar (PM) and not your watch (End User)

- State conventional and SOF small arms performance

needs are not the same
136
 You may be part of the problem (cont.)

• If you:

- State that those who question the poor performance of

current equipment undermine the confidence of the
war fighter

- Do not embrace and seek out regular and direct end

user involvement in ordnance selection

- Have not read the book “Misfire” and “The Black Rifle”
137
“The Soldier in the
field is our number
one priority”
Secretary of the Army Pete Geren
From US Army News Release dated 17 December, 2007
after forth place finish of US Standard
in APG Extreme Dust Test III 138
 References
(1) Excerpts – “Dangerous Weapons Jams” – Army Times – 26 March, 2007
(2) Excerpts – “Army releases findings from 507th ambush” – Army News Service – 17 July, 2003

(3) Excerpts – “Eye to eye with a suicide bomber” - SOF Magazine – February 2008

(4) Excerpts - “Real world experience” – Combat Tactics Magazine - 2005

(5) Excerpts – “Why you won’t get your hands on the Army’s best carbine” – Army Times – 26 February,

2007
(6) Study, “Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat “ CNA Corp. - December 2006 (6)

(7) US Army News Release – “Army position: M4 Carbine is Soldiers battlefield weapon of choice” – 29

May, 2007
(8) Slide – JSSAP briefing to NDIA SA - “Joint Service Small Arms Roadmap” - 15 May, 2002

(9) Slide – JSSAP ARD-04, Light Fighter Lethality After Next” - 2002

(10) Report – DoD IG “Program Management of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon Increment I” –

Report No. D-2006-123(PDF) – 29 September, 2006

(11) Report – ATEC “Carbine Extreme Dust Test” – 17 December, 2007

(12) Article – “Dead last” – Army Times – 24 December, 2007

(13) US Army News Release – “Army tests carbines for the third time in extreme dust” – 17 December,

2007.
(14) Article – “The XM26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System” – Small Arms Review – November , 2007

(15) Spreadsheet – “M4 History” – US Army source - November, 2007

(16) Article – “Special Ops Technologists Have Unique Wish List” – National Defense magazine,

April 2008 139

 References (cont.)
(17) White Paper – “Enhancement of Current Carbine & Rifle Capability using 6.8x43mm Rem. SPC”
– LCDR Gary K. Roberts, USNR – 1 Jan. 2007
(18) Product Sheet – M16A4 Rifle and M4 Carbine – PM Soldier Weapons – Oct. 2006

(19) Article – “The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy” (2002 USMC Tests of M4 and M16A4) – Defense

Industry Daily – 30 July 2007

(20) Article – “US Weapons Budget under fire for overspending” – Defense News – 1 April 2008

(21) Report – “Technical Evaluation Report for the Heckler & Koch (HK) 416 5.56mm Carbine and

M4A1 5.56mm Carbine – NSWC Crane – March 2006.

(22) Report – “Competition of the 5.56-Millimeter Carbine” – DODIG – 26 Sept. 2006

(23) Article – “Giving M4 failures ‘an alibi’?” – Army Times – 29 Dec. 2007

140
Time for a Change
US “Incremental”
Small Arms Fielding –
Failures and Solutions

Part I - Small Arms

by Jim Schatz
052008
141
Incremental Excellence
Tomorrow’s
State-of-the-Art
Assault Rifle Today

By Jim Schatz
 Introduction
• Follow-on to the 2008 NDIA Paper
“Incremental Small Arms Fielding – Failures and Solutions”
May 2008 - Dallas, TX

• Explore the “What If” Possibilities for the War Fighter of:
• Considering and cataloging superior incremental performance &
features scattered throughout the world’s leading assault rifles
• Exploiting the 10 most important proven incremental enhancements
available in today’s modern assault rifles
• Conventional vs. Bullpup configuration
• Quantifying “Package Performance” of the ultimate incrementally
superior assault rifle/carbine, or family of weapons, for near term
fielding (< 3 years)
• Primary aspects covered – others (ruggedness, safety, environmental
extremes) “a given”

* All data, claims supported by reference materials 143

 Qualifications – Jim Schatz
• User: 11B – 82nd Airborne Division
• Trainer: US Army Marksmanship Unit
• Provider: 22+ years to the US Government, war fighter
– Logistical Support
– Contracts
– Fielding
• Involved as US Contractor Developer: HK416/417,
M1014, USP/JCP, MP5/10, MSG90, ACR/G11,others
• Student: Of small arms since age ten
• Supporter: Of the end user

NO direct affiliation with firearms or ammo makers.

NOT the “lone voice” on this issue! One of many.
144
 Goal

To find, test and field

the best small arms
and ammunition available
to the American war fighter
today and always!
145
 Small Arms “Disconnect”
• Night Fighting Equipment 20 years Ago 2008
• Helmets and suspension
• Load bearing equipment
• Uniforms, boots, gloves
• Body Armor
• Eye, Ear Protection
• Rations, water carriers
• Communications gear
• Cold/wet weather gear
• First Aid pack, gas masks
• Anti-tank weapons Weapons designed in the 1960’s, or earlier!
146
The Cause – Our Aged Fleet

147
 The “Big 8” – Showing their Age

Average: 35 All eight weapons

Average: 28 Without M2HB
Average: 26 Without M2HB and M203
Average: 23 Without M2HB, M203, M16

• Trickle Down” effect. What the system buys often ends up in:
- All branches of our military
- US State Department/Embassy security
- OGA’s (federal law enforcement, DOE, NRC, FBP, other)
- State and Local law enforcement
- Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
148
 Definitions – Part I
• “Incremental” Improvements
- The “90% solution”
- Available as COTS/NDI, modified COTS

- Significant advantages for the end user!

> Reliability: 7X that of US standard
> Service Life: 3 – 4X that of US standard
> Improved Accuracy: 30-50% increase
> Safety: OTB (0 vs. 6 sec. drain time), Increased
(60%+) Cook Off (210-240 vs. 120-150 rounds),
SBFA (catch live projectiles during blank firing)
> Weight Reduction: up to 20% (system)
149
 Definitions – Part I
• “Incremental” Improvements (cont.)
- Significant advantages for the end user
> Modularity, User Configurable, Controls: (SCAR,
XM8, ACR/Masada)
> Parts Commonality: 82% between 5.56mm, 6.8mm
and 7.62mm (SCAR)
> Reduced Maintenance (user, maintainer): 72% less
cleaning time (any Op Rod system)
> Reduced Procurement Costs: (complete weapons,
barrels, piece parts)
> Reduced Life Cycle Costs: 45-75% 150
 Incremental vs. “Leap Ahead”
• Ground combatants still kill the enemy with KE mechanisms
(bullets, fragments) that must be:
- Accurately aimed and delivered to the target by
skilled operators (even AB munitions and LRF’s)
- From belt buckle distance to MER
- Same for all – Conventional, SOF, enemy

• The last “leap ahead” advancement in small arms –

14 century “Hand Cannon” (first KE firearm)

• The last substantial “incremental” advancement in US-issue

rifles/carbines was America’s first Assault Rifle the AR-
15/M16 more than four decades ago!

• The US “Big 8” small arms are 35 years old on average. 23

years without the oldest 3. In comparison, Germany has
replaced 9 of 10 small arms since 1994 with incrementally
151

superior small arms now available as COTS items.

 Threat Successes

Russian AN-94
“Shifted Pulse” Chinese QBZ-95/97 Family of Weapons
Assault Rifle - 5.8x42mm Superior cartridge/bull pup
5.45x39mm ammunition performance. Heavy
penetrator (lead penetrator “pusher”)
pH doubled @ 1800 rpm ROF
coming. First fielded in 1998.
In limited production and
fielding since 2001. Being
Russian SR-1 Gyurza
developed in 7.62x39mm. Armor Piercing Semi-
automatic Pistol
The US has nothing that 9x21mm SP-10, SP11,
competes with these SP-12 Adopted in 2003.
Penetrates 2.8mm
weapon capabilities!
Titanium and 30 layers
152
Kevlar at 100 meters.
 Quad Chart Explanation
Performance Category
Example:
Description of
Legacy System
Performance Category
Performance

Example:
The Value to the
Incrementally superior
War Fighter
COTS/NDI System
Performance
153
 Conventional Configuration
Comparison Table
10 current/modern Conventional-configuration Carbine-length Assault Rifles
Weapon HK33K Beretta G36K Daewoo SIG 551 AK102 XM8 M4 HK416 SCAR Averages
ARX 160 K1A BC L
Overall 865 900 860 838 833 824 838 838 900 889 859
Length(1) (34.1) (35.4) (33.9) (33.0) (32.8) (32.4) (33.0) (33.0) (35.4) (35.0) (33.8)
mm/(in.)
Barrel 322 305 320 263 363 314 318 368 368 355 330
Length (12.7) (12.0) (12.6) (10.4) (14.3) (12.4) (12.5) (14.5) (14.5) (14.0) (13.0)
mm/(in.)
Muzzle 840 838 N/A 820 N/A 850 N/A 838 N/A 826 835
Velocity (2756) (2750) (2690) (2789) (2750) (2710) (2740)
mps/fps
Key BB OR OR, OR – K2 OR OR OR, ACH OR, OR, OR –
Features ACH ACH, Carbine ACH, ACH, ECH 7-8/10
QCB AFA only AFA, QCB
ECH ISM option
AE
CC
(1)
Length provided is weapon in “fighting” configuration (buttstock fully extended, if applicable).
Note: Threat Standard (7.62x39 mm AKM) – OL = 870/690 mm (34.3/27.2 in.) Bbl Length = 415 mm (16.34 in.) MV = 710 mps (2330 fps)
Note: OL on average is 529 mm (20.1 in.) longer than barrel length.
Key: ACH – Ambidextrous Charging Handle AE – Adjustable Ejection AFA – Ambidextrous Forward Assist BB - Blowback
CC - Caliber Conversion (by user) ECH – Exchangeable Charging Handle FE – Forward Ejection
ISM – Integrated Sight Module (reflex sight/lasers) LAM – Laser Aiming Module OR - Op Rod Gas System
QCB – Quick-change Barrel (w/o tools) SM – Sight Mount permanent to barrel

154
 Bullpup Configuration
Comparison Table
10 current/modern Bullpup-configuration Carbine-length Assault Rifles
Weapon FAMAS AUG F2000 QBZ-97 TAR-21 SAR-21 Vector L85A2 A-91 Valmet Averages
CR-21 M82
Overall 757 805 694 760 720 805 760 780 660 710 745
Length (29.8) (31.7) (27.3) (29.9) (28.4) (31.7) (29.9) (30.7) (26.0) (28.0)
mm/(in.) (29.3)
Barrel 488 508 400 520 460 508 460 518 400 420 468
Length (19.2) (20.0) (15.8) (20.5) (18.1) (20.0) (18.1) (20.4) (15.8) (16.5)
mm/(in.) (18.4)
Muzzle 960 940 920 930 910 N/A 980 940 N/A N/A 940
Velocity (3156) (3084) (3019) (3051) (2986) (3215) (3084)
mps/fps (3084)
Key BB OR, OR, FE OR, OR, AE, OR, OR OR OR, OR OR -
Features QCB ACH ECH, ACH, FE,
LAM LAM ACH
9/10
SM FE –
2/10

Note: Threat Standard (7.62x39 mm AKM) - OL = 870/690 mm (34.3/27.2 in.) Bbl Length = 415 mm (16.34 in.) MV = 710 mps (2330 fps)
Note: Bullpup average OL is 125 mm (4.92 in.) shorter than the AKM (stock extended) and provides @ 230 mps (755 fps) > MV
from a 52.3 mm ( 2.06 in.) longer barrel.
Note: OL on average is only 277(10.9) longer than barrel length.

Key: ACH – Ambidextrous Charging Handle AE – Adjustable Ejection BB - Blowback ECH – Exchangeable Charging Handle
FE – Forward Ejection ISM – Integrated Sight Module (reflex sight/lasers) LAM – Laser Aiming Module OR - Op Rod Gas
System QCB – Quick-change Barrel (w/o tools) SM – Sight Mount permanent to barrel 155
 #1 – Reliability
Most important aspect Legacy System
of all combat ● MRBS

equipment – all other - 1,130 rds (0106DT)

aspects are reliant - 667 rds (US MIL SPEC)

upon proper operation ● MRBF

when needed. - 3,000 rds (US MIL SPEC)

• XM8 = 18,000 MRBS/F • Increased end user

= 7X more reliable in 2007
Extreme Dust Tests survival
• SCAR L = 3.9X more reliable in 2007
Extreme Dust Tests • Increased confidence
• HK416 = 3.8X more reliable in 2007
Extreme Dust Tests
• Enhanced unit
• L85A2 = 25,200 MRBF performance and 156

* All with Operating Rod Gas Systems

mission success
 #2 – Safety
End user must be 1. Cook off @ 180 rds.
protected from 2. Barrel failure @ 540 rds.
catastrophic equipment 3. Blank firing safety
failure under all – Tragic French Military
shooting, June 2008
conditions.
4. OTB – 6+ seconds

1. 180-210 rds. (SCAR L),

> 240-270 rds. (HK416, XM8, G36)
Enhanced user &
2. > 900 rds. – (G36) bystander safety –
3. Safety Blank Firing Adapter +30% (cook off)
catches 3+ live rounds
4. OTB capable (0-2 sec SCAR +40% (barrel failure)
L, 0 sec HK416)
6X faster OTB 157
 #3 – Probability of Hit
A – System Accuracy
A reliable, safe operating NTE 5” (127 mm) 10-shot group @ 100 y
(91.4 m) with M855 (SS109) ammo
weapon must facilitate hit No room for
probability through system
variation,
300
inherent system accuracy shooter
error,
15”
40”
(102 cm) meter

(weapon, ammo, sight). environ- (38 cm) MER

mental
influences 20” (51 cm)

Confined spaces use = short weapon & Improved system accuracy increases
barrel length hit probability under normal and
(LWRC 8” [203 mm] bbl
•10 shot 13” (330 mm) 300 y M6A2 PSD 6.8x43mm) worse case scenarios:
• 5 shot @ 1” (28 mm) 100 m (HK416 10.5” [254 mm]
• Extended ranges
55 gr. match ammo (after bbl 5.56x45mm)
12K rds)
• Shooter error
•10 shot @ 3.5”(89 mm) 100 m • Stress
groups M855 ammo, 1.9”
(48mm) after 15K rds
• Equipment variables
(SCAR L) 158
·Ammo + .7 MOA after 17K • Environmental influences
 #3 – Probability of Hit (pH)
B – Targeting
Optical/laser Multiple, time-consuming and often
complex mounting and zeroing
sighting/targeting procedures required for 3 or more
systems enhance & separate devices
• BUIS
increase pH under most • Laser pointer
operational conditions. •
•
Reflex sight
Other (Thermal, Magnified Optics)

• Integrated Reflex Sight & Laser Pointer –

XM8 ISM, AMO Integrated mounting
•
•
Single zeroing procedure
Single power source points and/or aiming
•
•
Single mount – reduced footprint, lighter
Single pressure switch – wireless devices reduce system
• PCAP’s Mounting Interface
• “Negative” accessory mounting footprint
weight and improve
• > 1 lb. (.45 kg) weight reduction – no front end
weight penalty
weapon handling aspects
159
•
•
Improved zero retention over P rail
Reduced cost (@ $300 USD)
and pH.
 #4 – Ease of Use
A – General
Soldier survivability is • Similarity to “Legacy” weapons is desirable
for current troops, but may force system
enhanced when small compromise for optimum performance

arms are easy to use, • Smart “Clean Sheet” approach yields

advantages for new troops and their
simple to maintain and organizations.
• Instinctual controls improve response time on
instinctual in their target, under stress, in CQB.
• Simplified and/or minimized system upkeep
application under stress. insures reliable function.

• Similarity of controls (SCAR, HK416) with

advanced functional characteristics
In armed encounters:
• Op Rod Gas Systems* insure: • Reliable function
• Improved function & safety
• Reduced maintenance interval (up to 15K rounds)
and duration of operator cleaning (3 vs. 15+ mins.)
• Speed of engagement
(* 15 of 20 sample weapons use Op Rod Gas Systems) • Precision
• Fully ambidextrous controls improve
response time of operators (XM8) Equals user survivability160
 #4 – Ease of Use
B – Ambidextrous & “Centralized” Controls
“Fighter Joystick” strong hand controls Legacy weapons have distributed controls
offer speed of response, reducing multiple positioned at multiple and often hard to
unnecessary and time consuming hand find/reach locations and seldom are fully
ambidextrous.
movements, improved muscle memory, and g
(Not visible)

passive control status, and free the weak 1. Charging handle c

2. Forward assist
hand to support/aim the weapon, change 3. Safety/selector lever
magazines, operate the charging handle and 4. Magazine release f
perform other non-weapon tasks. 5. Bolt catch/release d
e
Five separate controls/control locations

State-of-the Art Systems Strong hand activation of

Concentrate like-controls @ the trigger:
First location: multiple controls speeds
1.
2.
Magazine catch/release
Bolt catch/release
response time while
3. S/S lever
allowing the weapon to
Second location:
4. Charging handle cd remain in a ready firing
5. Forward assist
position at all times. 161
XM8
 #4 – Ease of Use
C – Modularity
The ability of the operator to Legacy modularity is most often
reconfigure the assigned limited to the exchange of
weapon in the field without complete upper receivers (where
special tools to adapt to ever- applicable) with few offering
changing mission and buttstock or barrel modularity or
operational environments and caliber conversion.
threats.
Modular user-replaceable sub-assemblies offer For use in current fluid operational
a wide range of weapon flexibility available on environments a modular reconfigurable
user demand: family of weapons would offer:
• Barrel lengths (AUG, Masada.
SCAR 4-6 mins) • CQB to DM/AR flexibility from a single platform
(bbl, sights, stocks, trigger group)
• Buttstock modules (XM8, HK33K) • Adaptable ammunition performance (pistol
• Trigger groups (G36, XM8, HK33K) caliber to 5.56x45mm NATO to medium caliber
• Caliber conversion (ACR/MASADA, AUG, ARX [6.5mm, 6.8mm])
160. AR-style systems – upper receiver replacement) • Enhanced terminal ballistics from short-162
•$1.2B USD projected savings over life-of-system by fielding a family barreled platforms for confined spaces use
of modular weapons, $12M USD to conduct the competition.
2 Aug 2005 Business Case Analysis.
 #5 – Lethality
5.56x45mm NATO M855 *L85A2 • 150 m from 14.5”
has a (368 mm) barrel
ammunition provides 20.4” • 0 m from a 10.4”
(518mm)b
diminishing terminal effects < arrel!
(264 mm) barrel
2,500 fps (762 mps) striking Compliance with Hague Convention limitations
restrict the use of superior LE-style “deforming”
velocity due to reduced projectiles that improve terminal performance at
fragmentation and/or yaw. < 2,500 fps (762 mps), especially through
intermediate barriers (clothes, magazines, car
panels, wind shields).

• “Medium caliber” (6.8x43mm Rem. SPC, 6.5mm Grendel, Improved terminal

7.62x39mm) user installable conversion kits (upper receivers, barrels,
bolts/magazine) provide enhanced (up to 55%) terminal performance at
performance on
the lower striking velocities often obtained from short-barreled carbines protected targets
desired for confined spaces use. with medium caliber
• 8” (203 mm) bbl LWRC 6.8x43mm PSD 115 gr. OTM @ 300m. conversion kit while
– 318 mm (12.53”) 10-shot group (3 group average) retaining NATO
– 450 mps (1475 fps)
– 949 j (700 ft. lbs) ME remaining standard ammo
• 14.5” (368 mm) bbl 5.56x45mm Carbine 62 gr. M855 @ 300 m.
compatibility as
– 650 mps (2,133 fps) required for training,
– 834 j (615 ft. lbs.) interoperability.
163
• Newly emerging “BTB” ammunition – equal performance
through intermediate barriers and unprotected targets.
 #6 – System Weight
The elusive and highly desirable Even with the liberal use of lightweight
attribute all soldiers want (yet materials such as aluminum and
polymer since the 1960’s the
seldom acquire).
infantryman’s combat load continues to
Second in importance to increase as new capabilities such as
reliability and MRS and optical aiming devices are
performance added with no change in ammunition or
(á la US M240B 28 magazine weight (poly mags same as
lbs, US M60 21 lbs.) 70 kg (155 lbs!) aluminum) .

• Limited possibilities to reduce rifle weights while Leverage emerging lightweight case
retaining desired features and performance material, ISM’s, PCAP’s and BTB
• Accessory mounting and combined function – @
20% weight reduction (XM8) projectile technology to reduce
• Increased accuracy and terminal performance system weight while increasing
can increase kills/rounds fired terminal performance
• Lightweight sights/sight mounting, ammunition = more kills/pound
technology offers the greatest weight savings:
• Polymer Case (US LSAT Prog.) > 40% = more kills/round
• LW Stainless Steel Case - @ 20% 164
• Caseless – too problematic for field use (20% of 70 kg = 56 kg (124 lbs!)
 #7 – Maintenance
Reducing the frequency and Direct “impingement”-style gas systems
common in Stoner AR-15/M16-style
duration/difficulty of platforms contaminate key working parts,
mandatory operator burn-off lubrication, create hard baked-on
carbon fouling that
maintenance can insure user reduces proper
compliance and thus system function and requires
extensive (unnecessary)
readiness when called upon. cleaning (@ 1,000-5,000
rounds).

• Op Rod Gas Operated weapons (HK416, G36, • System reliability is the most
SCAR, etc., etc., etc.) important aspect of a combat weapon
• Reduce cleaning for soldier survival
time by > 72%
• More than 17 new Op Rod designs
(3 vs. 15+ minutes)
• Reduce the interval of cleaning (> 15K
since 2004 in the US alone
rounds: HK416) and lubrication • Good news is most AR’s (15 out of 20)
• Can operate w/ minimal lube in dusty and new designs are using Op Rod Gas
environments (and reapplication at > 5K Systems. AR15/M16 and clones are prime
rds) and correspondingly increase holdouts of the direct gas system. 165
reliability and weapon readiness
 #8 – Service Life
Improved (modern) performance • Bolt = 6-10K rounds
specs can result in increased
piece part and system service • Barrel = 3-6K rounds
life, resulting in substantially
reduced life-cycle costs and • Magazine = < 12,000 rounds
improved system performance.
• Receiver = @ 50,000 rounds

Modern System Cost

● Bolt = 15,000 – 24,000 rds.
(HK416, SCAR L, XM8) (Purchase vs. Life-cycle)
● Barrel = 24,000 – 35,000 rds. Legacy vs. Superior COTS
(HK416, SCAR L, XM8)
(SCAR L, HK416)
● Magazine = 17,000 rds.
(XM8, G36)
SEE NEXT SLIDE
● Receiver = 100,000 rds.
(SCAR, G36) 166
* EQUAL PURCHASE COST!
 Purchase Cost vs. Life Cycle Cost - Weapon

Item Unit Cost ÷ Service Life Cost (cents) X 20,000 rd. X Division
($) (1) (#rounds) per rd. fired Life Cycle Cost (18K) =
= Cost =
US Standard $1,000 6,000 (2) 17 3,400 $61,200,000
Weapon (Qty K’s)
Superior $1,425 24,000 (3) .06 1,200 $21,600,000
COTS (Q 1)
Weapon
Superior $1,800 35,000 (3) .05 1,000 $18,000,000
USG (Qty K’s)
Weapon
● Superior Weapons 3.4X less costly to maintain over projected 20K round service life.
● Superior weapons offer 67% lower life cycle costs.

● Costs do not include: Armorers repair time/cost/training, piece parts, replacement

effort for user, logistical burden, serial number accountability, operator safety,
confidence, survivability.
(1) # rounds that can be fired before parts replacement. (2)
US MIL SPEC (3)
USG test data Q = Quantity K = Thousands 1 = one
167
 #9 – Performance
“Conventional” vs. “Bullpup” Configuration
Rifle/carbine layout is mostly Two strong trends in recent years:
driven by user specifications • Product improvements in conventional
written by legacy users (“old legacy systems (HK416, Stgw. 90, L85A2)

timers”) without equal • Trend towards bullpup configuration

(F2000, QBZ-97, TAR-21, A-91, SAR-21)
consideration of overall • Improved terminal ballistics
system performance in the • Shorter system length – improved
handling
hands of all users.
5.56mm Bullpup vs. Conventional • Clear advantage in handling,
(Carbine length) terminal effects, portability and
Size vs. Terminal Performance confined spaces use with bullpup
configuration.
Conventional Bullpup Bullpup %
Difference
• Only arguable disadvantages are
• OL
854 (33.6) 754 (2.93) -112 (4.3) -12 "manual of arms” and prone
mm (in.)
• Barrel magazine changes.
Length
mm (in.)
332 (13.1) 468 (18.4) +136 (5.3) +29 • How about a medium-caliber
• MV
835 (2740) 940 (3084) +105 (344) +11
Bullpup with 18” bbl in 6.8x43mm 168
@
mps (fps)
3,196 fps (974 mps) w/ BTB ammo?
 Bullpup Configuration
Comparison Table
10 current/modern Bullpup-configuration Carbine-length Assault Rifles
Weapon FAMAS AUG F2000 QBZ-97 TAR-21 SAR-21 Vector L85A2 A-91 Valmet Averages
CR-21 M82
Overall 757 805 694 760 720 805 760 780 660 710 745
Length (29.8) (31.7) (27.3) (29.9) (28.4) (31.7) (29.9) (30.7) (26.0) (28.0)
mm/(in.) (29.3)
Barrel 488 508 400 520 460 508 460 518 400 420 468
Length (19.2) (20.0) (15.8) (20.5) (18.1) (20.0) (18.1) (20.4) (15.8) (16.5)
mm/(in.) (18.4)
Muzzle 960 940 920 930 910 N/A 980 940 N/A N/A 940
Velocity (3156) (3084) (3019) (3051) (2986) (3215) (3084)
mps/fps (3084)
Key BB OR, OR, FE OR, OR, AE, OR, OR OR OR, OR OR -
Features QCB ACH ECH, ACH, FE,
LAM LAM ACH
9/10
SM FE –
2/10

Note: Threat Standard (7.62x39 mm AKM) - OL = 870/690 mm (34.3/27.2 in.) Bbl Length = 415 mm (16.34 in.) MV = 710 mps (2330 fps)
Note: Bullpup average OL is 125 mm (4.92 in.) shorter than the AKM (stock extended) and provides @ 230 mps (755 fps) > MV
from a 52.3 mm ( 2.06 in.) longer barrel.
Note: OL on average is only 277(10.9) longer than barrel length.

Key: ACH – Ambidextrous Charging Handle AE – Adjustable Ejection BB - Blowback ECH – Exchangeable Charging Handle
FE – Forward Ejection ISM – Integrated Sight Module (reflex sight/lasers) LAM – Laser Aiming Module OR - Op Rod Gas
System QCB – Quick-change Barrel (w/o tools) SM – Sight Mount permanent to barrel 169
 #10 – Accessories
Enhanced Features
COTS enhancements exist • Op Rod Gas Systems
• ISM and/or integral LAM vs. multiple
as accessories and/or targeting devices (2-3)
• PCAP’s (XM8) or hard points (SCAR) vs.
weapon system dedicated MRS (MRS adds 1 lb. [.45 kg]
and costs @ $300 USD)
technologies to improve • “Nested” High Reliability magazines
(>18K rd. life)
system performance. • Cold hammer forged barrel
• SBFA
• Medium caliber conversion option

• Russian GP30 40mm add-on Available COTS

grenade launcher
• “Shifted pulse” enhancements available
or “Balanced today to enhance legacy
action” operating performance, or to be
systems (AN-94, AEK-971)
● ST Kinetics PPAB 40x46mm LV
considered in new systems.
System – All COTS or near COTS 170
The “Ultimate” Incrementally Superior
Conventional Assault Rifle
¾ Safety ¾ Reliability =/> 18,000 MRPF/S ¾ Family of Modular Weapons
• Cook-off =/> 270 rds. • Barrels
• Barrel failure =/> 900 rds. • Stocks, trigger groups
• OTB Capable (0 seconds) • Calibers
Ambi charging handle, ISM (IR laser,
Reflex Sight)
• Feed systems
forward assist
* Reduced life cycle costs
Op Rod Gas System
Cold Hammer
Forged Barrel

¾ System weight
SBFA • =/< 2.8 kg (6.1 lbs.)
GP30 Grenade “Negative” “Centralized” (XM8 BC)
Launcher footprint Ambi controls
accessory • LW ammunition
mounting points

¾ pH = 2-3 MOA High reliability

magazine

¾ Lethality ¾ Maintenance
• BTB projectiles • 72% less operator cleaning
• Medium caliber option • > 2X bolt service life
• Increased Terminal Effectiveness • > 3X barrel service life
171
against unprotected and protected • 2X receiver service life
targets
 The “Ultimate” Incrementally
Superior Bullpup Assault Rifle
¾ Safety ¾ Reliability =/> 18,000 MRPF/S ¾ Family of Modular Weapons
• Cook-off =/> 270 rds. • Barrels
• Barrel failure =/> 900 rds. • Stocks, trigger groups
• OTB Capable (0 seconds) • Calibers
Ambi charging handle,
forward assist
ISM (IR laser,
Reflex Sight)
• Feed systems
Op Rod Gas System * Reduced life cycle costs
Cold Hammer
Forged Barrel

¾ System Weight
SBFA • =/< 3.27 kg
“Centralized”
GP30 Grenade “Negative” footprint
Ambi controls (7.2 lbs.) (TAR-21)
Launcher accessory mounting
points • LW ammunition

¾ pH = 2-3 MOA
High reliability
magazine

¾ Lethality ¾ Maintenance
• BTB projectiles • 72% less operator cleaning
• Medium caliber option • > 2X bolt service life
• Increased MV (NLT 11%) • > 3X barrel service life
172
• Increased ME • 2X receiver service life
 SUMMARY
• The last 10 years have produced substantial incremental enhancements
in small arms and ammo technology (most notably in potential threat
weaponry).
• With few but partial exceptions these incremental enhancements have not
been combined into a single system.
• Too many new developments/procurements are being made using outdated
performance specifications and/or legacy user input only.
• The “Ultimate” incrementally superior system could be available in 18-24
months if all inclusive performance specs would be released to industry in a
“responsive” program.
• Incrementally superior COTS weapons fielded today will always
outperform promised and “unfielded” so-called “Leap Ahead” technologies,
and at comparably modest developmental costs!
($430M USD spent in past 20 yrs on “Leap-ahead” programs vs. 0 dollars spent on HK416).

●America is not matching threat weapon/ammunition capabilities and is

173
quickly falling behind in its small arms superiority!
 A parting thought…

”Most of the boots on the ground in

OEF/OIF will be the first to tell you that
the enemy has no respect for our war
fighters in a head-to-head confrontation
while maneuvering with
his individual weapon.
An enemy who does not respect a Soldier’s
ability to deliver pain or death will always
bring the fight directly to the Soldier,
at belt buckle distance.”
MSG Steve Holland – 5th Special Forces Group (ABN) 174

30 year Army veteran, NDIA Hathcock Award Recipient

Contact Information

Jim Schatz
E-mail: schtred@aol.com
Phone: (571) 276-7042
United States of America

175
 JNLWP Update to the
International Infantry & Joint Services
Small Arms Symposium

Mr Swenson
Acquisition Division Chief, Joint NL Weapons Directorate
(703)432-0906, DSN 378-0906
kevin.swenson@usmc.mil
Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release
22 May 08
 COUNTER-PERSONNEL

Deny
Deny Distract /
Area
Area // Access
Access Disorient Optical
Individuals
Individuals
Incapicitator
CP

Determine
Intent Directed
Energy
Weapon

Acoustic
Incapicitator

Disperse
Disperse
Individuals
Individuals // Crowd
Crowd

t IImmppaacctt
u
BBllun
n t

Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release

 COUNTER-MATERIEL

Disable Weapon
Directed
Deny
Deny Area
Area // Access
Access Energy
Vehicle
Vehicle Weapon

A nti -T
racti o
n Ma t
eri el
Stop
Stop Entanglement
System
Vessel
Vessel

Directed
Energy
Weapon

CP

Stop
Vehicle

Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release

 NDIA Small Arms Systems Symposium

Small Caliber Ammunition Panel Discussions

Paul Shipley
21 May 2008

Company Confidential Company Private

 Organization
NYSE: TXT
Providence, RI

Bell Helicopter Textron Systems E-Z-GO Textron Financial

Cessna

Fluid & Power

AAI Corporation Greenlee

Jacobsen

Kautex

Company Private 2
 Textron Systems
Lycoming
Engines
% of
revenues 36% 25% 14% 11% 8% 6%

Tactical
Operations

Aircraft
Intelligent Engines
Combat Battlefield
Vehicles Systems Geospatial
Unmanned
Systems Operations

Training & Test Marine Craft Air Launched Aircraft & Cylinders & Intelligence
Systems Weapons Weapon Systems Parts Solutions

Company Private
 Organization
2007
Textron Inc. Revenues: $13.2B
Providence, RI Employees: 44,000

2007
Textron Systems Revenues: $1.3B*
Wilmington, MA Employees: 6,500

2007
AAI Corporation Revenues: $0.7B
Hunt Valley, MD Employees: 2,450

• Aerosonde Pty Ltd • ESL Defence Ltd.

• Pioneer UAV, Inc. • Symtx, Inc.

*Includes AAI revenues for a 6-week stub period following acquisition.

Company Private
 AAI Locations ESL Defence Limited
(Hamble, England)

Ogden Tech
Center Oklahoma City
Tech Center

Wright-Patterson
Field Office

AAI Corporation
(Hunt Valley, MD)

AAI Aerosonde NA
(Wallops Island, VA)

Charleston Training &

Simulation Operations

Huntsville Operations
Ft. Huachuca Operations
Warner Robins Field Office
Ft. Rucker
Field Office
Symtx Jacksonville Tech Center
Mississippi Operations
Orlando Operations

Aerosonde Pty Ltd

(Victoria, Australia)
Headquarters

Company Private
Advanced Programs

Company Private
 SAMPLES OF AAI ORDNANCE PRODUCTS

OICW Airburst

AIWS Caseless

Company Private
Samples of AAI Small Arms

Company Private
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies

Ammunition Features
Cased Configuration Caseless Configuration

• High Ignition Temperature

Propellant Technology
• Conventional technology in
telescoped configuration • 50%+ Weight Reduction

• 30 – 40% weight reduction • 40% Volume Reduction

• Lower Risk • Higher Risk

Company Private
CL Cartridge Components & Technologies

Key Technologies
• Telescoped configuration

• High Ignition
Temperature Propellant
(HITP)

• Internal Primer assisted

interior ballistics

Company Private
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
AAI Contractor Team Members

TBD
Weapon Producer
Launch Systems
Lake City

Company Private
 NDIA International Small Arms Symposium, Exhibition &
Firing Demo
2008

“Hiram Maxim and His Machinegun:

A great force harnessed to a useful purpose”

By Stephen C. Small, Ph.D.

as of 1500hrs – 13 May 08
 Agenda
• The Early Years
• His Automatic Machinegun
• Marketing the Maxim Machinegun
• Colonial Wars
• Ordnance Department Tests
• 20th Century Warfare
• The Human Cost
• Summary
The Early Years
 The Young Inventor at The
United States Electric Lighting Co.
Embarks for Europe
His Automatic Machinegun
“Cannot this great force be harnessed
to a useful purpose?”
1884: The Initial Attempt
1885: The First Recoil-Operated
Machinegun
The principle
Marketing the Maxim Machinegun
 1888: The Testing of the Maxim
by U.S. Army

Prototype Maxim Machinegun Gatling Gun

 The U.S. Navy
Adopts the Maxim “Pom-pom” Gun
1893: Maxim sold his new weapon
to the British Army
The Prince of Wales
The Russian Army
 Kaiser William II
“This is the gun; there is no other!”
An International Best Seller
knighthood from Queen Victoria
Colonial Wars and Insurgences
1893: The Matabele War
1898 - The Battle of Omdurman
1899 - Philippine Insurrection
The Ordnance Dept. Tests
Machineguns
The U.S. Ordnance Dept. Tests
the Maxim Gun - Again
U.S. Army Chief of Ordnance,
Brigadier General Buffington
John M. Browning
1909: The Benet-Mercie
Machine-Rifle
1913: U.S. Army Selects a
Maxim “Vickers”
Platform Mounted Maxim
Machinegun
Platform Mounted Maxim
Machinegun
20th Century Warfare
1904-5: The Russo-Japanese War
World War I
Strengthened Defense
The Engineer’s War
Filling The Water Jacket
Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft Maxims
1917: America Enters
World War I
Americans & The Chauchat
Machinegun
Hotchkiss 8mm M1914
Machinegun
Browning M1917 Machinegun
1917-18: American Machinegun
Production
The Human Cost
1916 – The Battle of the Somme
Summary
Questions?
 The Ultimate Caliber:

Myth or Reality?

Date: May 19, 2008

Presented By: Shawn
Spickert-Fulton
 Famous Caliber Studies of Years Past

1. Thompson-LaGarde Pistol Caliber Study

2. John Douglas Pedersen’s 1924 Caliber Study
3. SAW 1972-1974 Caliber Study
4. NATO Point Defense Weapon Caliber Study

Politics
Counts

5.56mm? 6.5mm? 6.8mm? 7mm? 7.62mm? 8mm?

 What’s Most Important?
Depends on who you ask…

• Barrier Penetration Potential

• Consistency / Shelf Life
• Cost
• Manufacturability
• Minute of Angle
• Muzzle Flash / Weapon Signature
• Muzzle Velocity
• Recoil
• Safety
• “Stopping Power”
• Versatility
• Weight
 What’s best? It all depends…

1. Is your target frequently protected or behind barriers? What type?

How often?

2. Do you have legal restrictions which prohibit certain designs?

3. What is the range of interest? Are these ranges all equally

important?

4. How many missions and weapons is that ammunition expected to

service?

5. Are there any cost or manufacturing or environmental constraints?

6. What can’t you live without and what do you absolutely have to
have?

Jack of all trades… Master of none…

 Can’t optimize against everything, and
for everyone…

1. One factor may affect many others.

2. The influence of each factor on another is not constant.

3. What performance sacrifices are you willing to make on the high end
to bring up performance on the low end?
 Test Limitations & Results

1. How do you test each factor?

• Statistical Nature of Ballistics (Performance Bands)
• The indirectness of tests
• The complexity of tests

2. How do you convey test results to your

customer?
• The simplicity problem
• The time problem
• The preconceived notion problem
• The “not invented here” problem

“The problem with small arms isn’t that there aren’t experts.
The problem is that everyone is an expert.”
 More Food for thought…

• From historical observations, most encounters happen at 100m or

less. The ammunition expenditure per casualty ratio for these conflicts
is usually hundreds or thousands to one.

• The average engagement range of an encounter is highly dependent

upon the weather, terrain, and light conditions of that setting.

• Target exposure time is usually mere seconds. In many instances,

they are going to ground by the time they are observed. They may be
protected by high, low, or no tech.

• We don’t know where the next war will be fought, and we must be
prepared to fight in multiple settings at the same time.

• Soldiers must be comfortable, proficient, and confident with their

weapons. Multiple weapons for individual settings is not considered
optimal. However, specific weapons are not expected to be employed
at every operational range.

“Fight as you train. Train as you fight.”

 What’s Out there?
The Commercial Projectile Weight Envelope

Anything in between the arrows is

probable.
 Why the range?

1. Projectiles have a relatively

small range of length to
diameter ratios that have
desirable flight characteristics.

2. The bulk of projectiles are

usually composed of materials
with a density between steel
and tungsten. Lower density
materials are used sparingly
due to various constraints
X-Ray!
Relationship between Propellant Wt,
Projectile Wt, and Muzzle Velocity
 Why this Range?

1. Shooters can only adjust for a certain

level of launch recoil. (accuracy)

2. Shooters don’t want long barrels, but

long barrels are required to obtain the
upper range of muzzle velocity.

3. Pressure constraints limit overall

chamber pressures and projectile
velocities

4. Propellant gas physics puts an upper

constraint on projectile velocities.

5. Cartridges are used in multiple

weapons with different constraints (e.g.
M4-10 inch barrel and SAW)
High pressures at muzzle exit
6. Cartridge Volumes result in muzzle flash!
Muzzle Energy vs. Caliber

1. Again wide range of

values.
2. Depends upon the
constraints of the
system in question
3. No one answer per
caliber.
 Shape does matter.

• In the next few slides you will

see some residual velocity
curves that were generated
using the Siacci method. This
is a theoretical approximation
for example purposes.

• The curves reflect shapes

that are not atypical of
military projectiles. However,
drag is a complicated area,
and specifics will vary.
Residual Velocity at Range &
Muzzle Velocity

Velocity
Differences
Shrink
Residual Velocity at Range and
Projectile Mass
Two sets of curves…
Max Point Blank Range,
Precision & Caliber

Projectiles should be “zeroed”

for as great a span of ranges as
possible without readjustment of
the sights.
The Rest of the Story…
Precision vs. Accuracy

Although the weapons may be

capable, and the shooters may be
willing, targets in theatre are not hit
as often as one would like.

Recoil, Time to Acquire, Stress, and

Target exposure time all play a part
in limiting the accuracy of the
weapon in field scenarios
 Getting to the Target…

• Many intermediate barriers on

the typical battlefield.

• The -- after barrier

effectiveness -- of many
projectiles is often of prime
importance.

• Projectile penetration
effectiveness is tied to the
physical characteristics of the
projectile, the target, and the
impact particulars.

Barrier penetration in many instances is tied to caliber,

impact velocity, hardness, density, mass, thickness,
angle of attack, obliquity and overall geometry
 A look at Incapacitation

“Not all impacts are equal.”

Psychology plays a role in

many instances of “instant
incapacitation”.
Effectiveness varies considerably
(even within a caliber)

•Impact energy is like a

budget. If your budget is
large, there is a lot that you
can, but not necessarily will,
do. If it is small your choices
are limited.

Yaw at impact, projectile

shape, and projectile
ruggedness all contribute to
how effective a particular
projectile/fragment spends its
budget after impact. Very
difficult to gauge and very
controversial
Putting it all together….

Beyond basic performance

analysis lies the difficult task
of putting it all together.
The expected frequency and
importance of different events
will largely guide the analyst
towards his final answer.
Mathematical weighting plays
a significant and controversial
role here.
 The Reality

• Best caliber evaluations are closely tied to the

requirements.

• Several configurations will generally be capable of

meeting generalized performance criteria.

• Larger calibers typically:

– Weigh more
– Bring more energy to distant targets
– are more effective against barriers.
– are less accurate.

• Smaller calibers typically:

– weigh less
– bring very high energies to targets at short ranges
– are effective against many intermediate barriers
– are more accurate
 Historical Footnote

Most historical rifle caliber studies have

yielded an optimal value between
6.5mm and 7mm
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

National Defense Industrial Association

Joint Services Small Arms Systems
Annual Symposium
May 2008

Ms. Kori Spiegel Mr. Paul Shipley

US Army ARDEC AAI Corporation
(973) 724-7912 (410) 628-3462
kori.spiegel@us.army.mil shipley@aaicorp.com
1
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Top 5 Soldier Weight Contributors
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

For Automatic Rifleman:

1. M249 Squad Automatic Weapon w/200 rds Ammo
2. 5.56mm Ammunition (400 rounds)
3. Body Armor & Helmet
4. Communication Equipment
5. Canteen/Water

LSAT NDIA Small Arms

May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Goals
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

Goals:
• 35% weapon weight reduction
• 40% ammunition weight reduction
• Reduced training & maintenance
• Maintain cost of current systems

Approach:
• “Clean Slate” design
• Reduced weight as the priority
• In depth trade studies
• Extensive modeling & simulation

LSAT NDIA Small Arms

May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Program Approach
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

5.56mm Telescoped Light Machine Gun

Ammunition Demonstrator

Cased Caseless

• Focus is development of • Achieve 50% overall weight reduction

technologies- not specific weapon • Pursue parallel Cased Telescoped and
system Caseless Ammunition design approaches
• Demo via Light Machine Gun with • High commonality of design and function,
5.56mm ammunition some action component differences
• Spiral development approach
4
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Status vs Goals
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

Current LSAT Program

Current
Capability
(M249) Threshold Current Status Objective

Weapon CT 9.8 lbs (44%)

17.5 lbs 13.1 lbs (25%) 11.4 lbs (35%)
Weight CL 9.9 lbs (43%)

Ammo Weight CT(2) 13.6 lbs (33%)

20.4 lbs 15.3 lbs (25%) CT(3) 12.2 lbs (40%) 12.2lbs (40%)
600 rds Pkgd
CL 9.8 lbs (51%)
Affordability Gun $3600 Gun $3600 Gun $3600
Equivalent
Ammo $262 Ammo $262 Ammo $262
TRL CT TRL 5
N/A 5 5
CL TRL 4
Effectiveness Maintain Potential Improve
Baseline
Baseline Improvement Baseline
5
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
AAI Contractor Team Members
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

TBD
Weapon Producer
Launc h Systems
Lake City

6
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Weapon Design and Performance Features
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

Key Technologies Muzzle Compensator

(option) Rotating Chamber prov ides
In-line push thru feed/eject
• Use of telescoped ammo-
cased and caseless
Both M855 ball and M856 Vented
• Lightweight materials & tracer bullets prov ide Foregrip
structural configuration lethality equivalent to M249
Long stroke, soft recoil
• Thermal management for Fluted, Quick Change Barrel Improv es controllability
weight reduction High stiffness and heat capacity
No tools for barrel change
– Barrel Rounds Counter
– Caseless chamber improv es maintainability
Rail attachment points
components
• Caseless chamber sealing Multiple Sling
attach points for
• Human factors- firing Full Loop
mission tailoring
controllability Polymer Links
Semi or Full
• Integration of electronics Auto Fire @
100 Round Ammo 600 rd/min
Both cased telescoped Soft Pouch (150 for
and caseless configurations Caseless)

7
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Ammunition Design Features
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

Key Technologies
• Telescoped cartridge
• Cased Ammunition
– Polymer cartridge case
and endcap
– Compacted/consolidated
propellant
• Caseless Ammunition
– High Ignition
M855 LSAT CT LSAT CL
Temperature Propellant
Weight 600 linked pkg'd rnds 20.8 lbs 13.6 lbs (Sp2) 9.8 lbs
– Booster assisted interior
33% reduction 51 % reduction
12.2 lbs (Sp3)
ballistics
40% reduction • Demonstrate in 5.56mm
Muzzle velocity (78 ft) 3,020 ft/sec 3,020 ft/sec 3,020 ft/sec – Address producibility
Length 2.25 inches 1.6 inches 1.6 inches
– Consider scalability
Diameter 0.38 inches 0.45 in (Sp2) 0.35 inches
0.38 in (Sp3)
Primer Percussion Percussion Percussion

8
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Ammunition Features
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

Cased Configuration Caseless Configuration

• Conventional technology in • High Ignition Temperature

telescoped configuration Propellant Technology
• 30 – 40% weight reduction • 50%+ Weight Reduction
• Lower Risk • 40% Volume Reduction
• Higher Risk
9
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

Cased Telescoped System

Design and Development Status

- Ammunition -
- Weapon -

10
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CT Ammunition Chronology
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

2005 2006 2007 (May)

Spiral 1 Cartridge Spiral 2 Cartridge Spiral 2 Cartridge

• 24% wt red, 0.50” OD • Reduced size, weight • 33% wt red, 0.46” OD
• Off the shelf • Custom LSAT powder • Continued
propellant w/reduced flash refinements
• Demonstrated • Material optimization • Baseline established
concept and across temperatures for materials, design,
performance • Supported integrated tooling
• Used for initial weapon development • Supported weapon
weapon development development, demos
testing and cartridge Spiral 3 Cartridge
geometry studies
• Initiated development
11
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CT Ammunition 2007/08 Update
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

• Spiral 2- Fabricated
ammunition to support
weapon testing
• Spiral 3- Conducted initial
performance testing
– Compacted propellant
– Consolidated propellant
CT CT CT CL
– 0.38” diameter Spiral 1 Spiral 2 Spiral 3 Spiral 2
– 40% Weight Reduction
• Over 9,000 rounds fired
– Mann Barrels and Machineguns
– Temperatures ranging
from -65F to +160F
• Preparing 2,000 rd contract
delivery
12
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CT Weapon Chronology
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

2005 2006

SN 1
SN 1 • Integrated weapon/action
• Action function • Conducted functional
assessed using assessments, incorporated
dynamic test fixture design refinements
• Spiral 1 ammo • Fixture and shoulder firings
• Validated kinematic • TRL 5 demo with Spiral 1 ammo
model
SN 2
Lubricious coating • Initiated design updates
assessment • Fabricated hardware
13
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CT Weapon Chronology
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

2007 (May)
SN 1
SN 2

SN 1
• Fired approx 3,000 rds
• Converted weapon to Spiral 2 ammo
• Army DTC limited safety release for
manned fire
• Conducted shootability assessment
• Confirmed TRL 5 with Spiral 2 ammo
SN 2
• Weapon Action in test, approx 750 rds fired
• Integrated weapon components ready
14
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CT Weapon 2007/08 Update
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

• SN1
– Fired approx 6,500 total rds
– Conducted 4 major live fire demos
– Measured system characteristics Single Shot Char acter ist ics M249 vs. LSAT
(Pro n e fro m b ipo d )
1 40

• Aim disturbance/compensation 1 20
M 24 9 3 Rou nd Bu rst
L SAT Si ng le Sh ot Avg

1 00

• Recoil

Forc e (lbs )
80

60

• Barrel thermal/ablator heat reduction 40

20

– Incorporated design refinements

-1 0 0 -50 0 50 100 150 20 0 2 50 300
Tim e (m s )

• SN2
– Fired approx 2,000 rds
– Integration complete
– TRL 5 verification underway
15
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

Caseless System

Design and Development Status

- Ammunition -
- Weapon -

16
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CL Cartridge Components & Technologies
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

Key Technologies
• Telescoped configuration
• High Ignition Temperature
Propellant (HITP)
• Internal Primer assisted
interior ballistics
17
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CL Ammunition Chronology
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

2005 2006 2007 (May)

Characterize HITP Replicate 4.92mm ACR Begin Scale-up to 5.56mm
•• Fabricate
Fabricate initial
initial Spiral
Spiral 11
5.56mm
5.56mm ammo
ammo usingusing
lab-scale
lab-scale process
process

•• Design
Design and
and equip
equip
process
process scale-up
scale-up facility
facility

18
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CL Ammunition 2007/08 Update
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)
• Spiral 2 Process scale-up facility complete and in use
– Located at ATK Launch Systems (Utah)
– Equipment includes
• 50 ton transfer mold
• Dry material feed and handling
• Solvent processing
• Horizontal mixer
– Several Design-of-Experiments process studies
• Dedicated primer fabrication facility nearing
completion at ATK Lake City AAP
Spiral 2

19
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CL Ammunition 2007/08 Update
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

• Refined Spiral 2 Ammunition

– Several Design-of-Experiments HITP process studies
– FNGUN interior ballistics model updated
– Primer (internal and external) material studies
– Preparing contract deliverable ammunition
• Initiated Spiral 3 Development
– Replace energetic binder
• Improve cost/environmental considerations
• Reduce production facility impact
– Reduce thermal load on weapon
• Burn rate modifiers- reduce flame temperature, improve barrel life
• Exterior coatings- reduce heat transfer rate
20
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CL Weapon Chronology
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

2005 2006

Burst fire analysis

temperature profi le

Component Studies Thermal Focus

• Chamber sealing • Initial material studies
• Firing pin interface • High temperature
• Characterize thermal loads • High heat capacity
• Utilized residual 4.92mm ACR • Insulating materials
ammo • Thermal configuration studies
• Maximize CT commonality • Ablator heat reduction assessment

21
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CL Weapon Chronology
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

2007 (May)

Design Finalization
• 3D models, kinematics
• Subsystem test fixtures
Mat’l Thermal Investigations
• Insulating materials
• Laser pulse heating apparatus
• Ballistic fixture
• Automatic fire barrel heating/model

22
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 CL Weapon 2007/08 Update
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

• Conducted Weapon Subsystems Tests

– Ballistic interfaces
• Firing pin
• Chamber volume
• Seals
– Weapon/Cartridge interfaces (via CT wpn)
• Rammer loads
• Cross feed loads
• Free belt dynamics
• Validated kinematic model
• Weapon action tests underway
• Continued thermal tests
– Insulating materials
23
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Rifle Design Activity
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

• Initiated in 2008
• Requirements analysis
• Concept development and tradeoffs
– Both CT and CL designs (ctg same as LMG)
– 17 rifle concepts- various mechanisms and overall
configurations
– Two magazine approaches- weapon powered, spring
powered. Focused on high capacity.
– Evaluated, downselected to two each CT and CL
• Detailed design
– Nearing completion
– Full detail 3D models
– Structural analysis, kinematic analysis

24
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Ongoing Supportability Activities
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

• Supportability Focus
– Evaluate technology implementation considerations
– Fully integrated with development effort
• Key Activities Nearing Completion
– Logistics Support Analysis- Level of Repair analysis
(COMPASS), Life Cycle Cost analysis (ACEIT), O&M task
identification (new Army maintenance concept)
– Reliability, Availability, Maintainability- Failure modes, effects,
and criticality analysis, reliability tracking, mean time to repair
– Training analysis and materials- Training concept, training task
analysis
– Human System Integration- Human factors design support,
system safety evaluations, fightability assessments (2
complete), shootability assessment (1 complete)

25
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Lightweight Small Arms Technologies
Summary
Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT)

• System design meets all program requirements:

– Weight reduction exceeds goals
– Improves lethality
– Improves logistics
– Improves ergonomics
• Maintaining parallel, synergistic Cased Telescoped and Caseless
development plan
– Emphasizes commonality
– Reduces program risk
– Initiated Rifle design activity- requirements, concepts, detailed designs
• Scalable design provides significant modularity and commonality
• Cohesive Government/industry team ensures success in
development, user acceptance, and production

Comments/Questions?
26
LSAT NDIA Small Arms
May 2008
 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS

NAVY SMALL ARMS

CAPT Patrick Sullivan Mr. Bruce Reese

Program Manager, PMS-340 DAPM, Navy Small Arms Program
Email: Patrick.T.Sullivan3@navy.mil Email: Bruce.Reese2@navy.mil
Phone: (202) 781-0758 Phone: (202) 781-0595

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 1

 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Navy Small Arms
Program Overview

• Full life cycle support for the Navy’s small arms

• Engineering
• Acquisition
• Maintenance
• Weapons distribution
• Weapons Tracking

• Acquisition and acquisition support are provided for all small arms,
mounts and related equipment
– Majority of acquisitions are from Army or direct from OEM
– Occasional modifications to in-service weapons/mounts
– 1,223 worldwide activities
– Over 422,000 weapons

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 2

Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS

Navy Small Arms Program

Road Map

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 3

 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
Modernization Way Ahead

Existing Systems Emerging Systems

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Medium Machine Guns

M60
M60 M240N/B

M60E3
M60E3 // MK43
MK43 MK48 LWMG

Mounts

MK26
MK26 MOD17
MOD17 MK93 Universal Mount

MK64
MK64 MOD
MOD 44

MK82
MK82
MK97 Mount

MK58
MK58

Carbines
Colt
Colt 727
727
Carbine
Carbine M4A1 Carbine

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 4

 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
Modernization Way Ahead (cont.)

Existing Systems Emerging Systems

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Rifles

M16A1HB
M16A1HB
M16A3/5

M14
M14

40MM Grenade Launcher

M79
M79 M203

Surface Ship Machine Gun

MK19
MK19 GMG
GMG Twin M2HB MG

MK44
MK44
Twin M240 MG
Mini
Mini Gun
Gun

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 5

Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS

What can industry do for Navy Small Arms?

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 6

Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS

BACKUP

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 7

 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
7.62mm Machine Gun Modernization

• Replace the obsolete M60 Family of Machine Guns (MG)

• $32.4M FY05 -06 supplemental funds used to procure > 3000
each M240 MG as replacement for the M60 MG
• Includes mounts, initial issue kits, and spare parts
• Replacement of M60s with M240B/N was accomplished on a
priority basis (CFFC determined priorities).
• Training Commands
• Units in direct support of GWOT
• Deploying Battle Groups
• Shore stations
• Remaining Fleet units
• MK43 and remaining M60E3 Lightweight M60s will be replaced
with the MK48 LWMG during FY09. 70% commonality of parts
with M240.

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 8

 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
Mount Modernization

• Replace the MK26 Mod 17 and the MK64 Mod 4 with the
less expensive and more robust MK93 universal mount
• 2000+ MK93 mounts on order. Delivery rate approximately 75 mo
• Capable of mounting both the M2HB .50 cal and the MK19 40mm
Grenade Machine Gun
• With an adaptor, can also mount M240 7.62mm Medium Machine
Gun (this option is too expensive under normal circumstance)
• Transition to the MK93 mount should be complete by 4Q FY08

• Replace the MK58 and the MK82 M60 Machine Gun

mounts with the MK97 M240 Machine Gun mounts
• MK58 and MK82 specific to the M60 family of Machine Guns
• MK97 is specifically designed to mount the M240 family of
Machine Guns
• 1200+ MK97 mounts on order. Sufficient mounts on hand/on
order to meet all requirements.
• Transition to the MK97 mount should be complete by 4Q FY08
UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 9
 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
Rifle Modernization

• Replace the M14 7.62mm As the Fleet’s Primary Rifle

• USN is only user of the M14 rifle
• Too heavy for use in VBSS and MIO operations
• Too long for use in VBSS and MIO operations
• Shore establishment and expeditionary units have migrated from
M14
• Fleet desires M16A3 as replacement for M14 rifle
• Few M14s to be retained for use in line throwing
• Currently 4,354 M14 rifles in use aboard Navy vessels
• Replacement of Fleet M14 rifles delayed by loss of
acquisition funding and increased requirements for the
M16A3. Expect transition to be completed by the end of
FY07. 6000 M16A3 rifles to be put into or returned to
service during FY07 through repair or conversion actions.

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 10

 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
40mm Grenade Launcher Modernization

• Replace the M79 40mm Grenade Launcher with the

M203
• M79 is obsolete
• M203 is designed to fit onto the M16 family of weapons. Results
in increased flexibility
• Relatively few (<900) M79s remain in service. Too expensive to
maintain
• FY06 funding being used to procure 750 each M203s. An
additional 500 units will be procured with FY07 funding.
Replacement of the M79 should be complete by the end
of FY07. (A few M79s will remain in service for use as
flare guns during tactical training exercises).

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 11

 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
5.56mm Carbine Conversion

• Convert the Model 727 carbine to M4A1 configuration

• USN is only user of the Model 727 carbine
• Model 727 carbine is out of production
• Model 727 carbine is not capable of mounting sighting devices
• $3.0M of the FY05 O&MN supplemental funding is being used to
convert 4000 each Model 727 to the M4A1 configuration (parts
procurement and SEAPORT contract).
• Conversion will take place at a rate of approximately 2000 per
year FY07-FY08.
• Model 727 will be completely replaced by the end of FY08
• CFFC and OPNAV N864G will determine priority of issue
• Training Commands
• Units in direct support of GWOT
• Deploying Battle Groups
• Shore stations
• Remaining Fleet units
UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 12
 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
Surface Ship Upgrade/MK44 Replacement

• Replace the MK44 mini-gun system with Twin M240 MG.

• MK44 Mini Gun
• System provided as a rapid response measure after USS Cole incident
• Fires 7.62mm at 3,000 rounds per minute
• Electrically driven w/six barrels
• 80 systems currently in use by Fleet
• No spare parts support in place
• Difficult and expensive to maintain aboard ship
• Requires ship alt to become a permanent emplacement
• Acquisition cost $72,300 per system (2 per ship = $144,600)
• Twin M240 MG (Sufficient FY06 funding to procure 160 ship sets)
• Fires 7.62mm at 1500 to 1900 rounds per minute (combined)
• Can continue to fire if one gun fails
• Any of the ship’s M240s can be used to replace failed gun
• Acquisition cost $22,652 per system (2 per ship = $45,304)
• Procurement of 300 twin M240 w/mount will cost <$7.0M (150 ship sets)
• Twin M240 MG will be provided in lieu of the MK44 – More efficient use of
funding
• Transition will be complete by the end of CY07
• CFFC/SURFOR will establish priorities

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 13

 Program Executive Office – Littoral and Mine Warfare UNCLAS
Small Arms
Surface Ship Upgrade/MK19 Replacement

• Replace the MK19 40mm Grenade Machine Gun with Twin M2HB .50 cal MGs.
• MK19 GMG
• System provided as a rapid response measure after USS Cole incident
• Fires 40mm grenade
• Very ineffective when being fired from a moving platform (ship) or at a
moving platform (small high speed boat)
• Twin M2HB MGs originally procured as part of Task Force Hip Pocket
• Fires .50 cal round at 1000 rounds per minute (combined)
• Can continue to fire if one gun fails
• Any of the ship’s M2HBs can be used to replace failed gun
• Transition will be complete by the end of CY08
• CFFC/SURFOR will establish priorities

UNCLAS Activity: PMS NSW Date: 19 May 2008 14

M385A1 Composite Projectile Feasibility Study
20 May, 2008

Christopher Summa, 40mm Grenade Ammunition Special Projects

 Objectives

• Objectives
– Reduce unit cost
– Integrate rotating band to the projectile body
– Obtain ballistic match to M385A1
• Requirements
– Color – Blue #35109, FED-STD-595
– Maintain Bore Life – 30,000 rounds
– Survive Linking/De-linking
– Accept Ink Stenciling
– Fire from Mk19 GMG
– Preserve Physical Properties
• Profile, Mass, CG, Moments of Inertia
 Rationale

• Current Fabrication:
1. Profile machined from aluminum bar stock
2. Swage copper rotating band
3. Final machining
4. Anodize projectile

• Fabrication using composites:

1. Injection-mold projectile
• Colorant in compound
• Can be either stenciled or engraved
2. Machine and assemble aluminum gas cap

• Polymer-Metal Powder Composites:

– Can use many commercial-grade injection-
moldable polymers with metal powder
– Can tune density to meet mass requirements
– Can be machined after molding (ideal for
prototyping)
 Feasibility Study: Overview

• M385A1 Composite Projectile Feasibility Study

– Characterize and down-select materials (Phase 1)
– Mold, assemble, and inspect prototype projectiles (Phase 2)
• Single-cavity mold with parting line along axis
• Core placed on aft side of projectile
– Core necessary to ensure no voids
or other mold related defects
– Conduct Live Fire and Environmental
Testing (Phase 3)
 Feasibility Study: Phase 1

• Material Selection Phase

– Ten material recommendations given by Ecomass Technologies
• 5 thermoplastic polymers combined with 2 different metal fills
– Performed mechanical properties testing and quasi-static FEA
– Downselected to 5 materials due to:
• Chemical incompatibility (-1 material)
• Insufficient UTS (-4 materials)
• Mismatching shrink rates (-1 material)
• Compounding issue (-1 material)
• Copper-filled materials added (+2 materials)

Materials for Phase 2

Copper + PPA
Copper + Nylon 6/10
Tungsten + PPA
Tungsten + Nylon 6/10
Stainless Steel + Nylon 6/10
 Feasibility Study: Phase 2

• Prototyping and Inspection Phase

– Gating location in saddle region of projectile
– Core pin placed in mold cavity to create hollow projectile core
– 35 projectiles for each material molded (175 total)
• Inspection shows all are considerably undersized
– New mold constructed based on previous inspection data and highest shrink rate
material – all materials too large would be machined.
– Equipment malfunction degrades 1 material.
– Four material groups molded (35 each), delivered to ARDEC (140 projectiles)

Mold Cavity Untrimmed Part

 Feasibility Study: Phase 3

• Testing Phase
– Environmental Testing
• High Temperature / High Humidity
– Results inconclusive: growth and shrinking experienced
– Post machining may have affected results
– Live Fire Testing from Mk19 Mod 3 GMG
• Two out of four material groups performed very well
– Experienced no break-up despite being undersized

FEA of Gas Plug Assembled Projectile Loaded Cartridge Weapon Setup

 Test Firing Videos

Test firing:

Test firing without gas cap:

 Phase 3 Conclusions

• Composite projectile is suitable for gunfire

– Requires more testing to demonstrate ability to rifle
• Composite projectile with hollow core not suitable
• Gas cap or mold-in-mold operation may be implemented in future design

Gas Cap Mold-In-Mold

• Saddle region thickness should be increased to improve strength of part

• Mold modification possible since parts are undersized
• Shape and ballistics of projectile can potentially be made to match those of the
tactical cartridge (M430A1 HEDP)
– Outer profile match not possible with modification to current mold
 Feasibility Study: Phase 4?

• Only use best material from original study (SS + Nylon 6/10)
• Perform in-depth Moldflow analysis to optimize mold design
– Optimized gating for reduced ovality and core pin deflection
– Improved dimensional stability (only one shrink rate to monitor)
– Incorporate gas cap recess into core pin
– Increase saddle wall thickness similar to M430A1 HEDP
• Modify existing mold based on analysis
– Unacceptable to construct new mold
• Mold and inspect 100 projectiles
• Live fire testing

• In process of pursuing follow-on contract

 Benefits to 40mm Ammunition
and Warfighter

• Reduced cost for training cartridges

• Increased training quantities for the warfighter
• Possible technology spill-over to other 40mm items
• Potential to utilize frangible qualities of material
Development of M16A2 Pivoting Coupling
20 May, 2008

Matthew Millar, 40mm Grenade Ammunition Special Projects

Background

• Soldiers do not have

capability to link
MK19 ammunition
belts together
without use of tools
• Current ammo
cannot be re-linked
to form full belts
• Limited to fire in belt
lengths of 32 before
reloading
 Coupling Design Improvements

• Dimensional
modification of current
coupling to allow
snapping action to
secure rounds to the
belt without deforming
the loop
– Difficult to spot
change visually
 Coupling Coating (cont)

• Reasons for new

coating
– Identification
• Gold = NEW
• Black = OLD
– Corrosion resistance
• 96 vs. 48 hours
• New coating will be
dulled down to
reduce coating
shine.
 FEA Analysis

• Investigated mechanical failure during

uncoupling/re-coupling
– Corners of coupling head wear down
slightly
– Loop keyhole opens slightly
• Continued uncoupling
and re-coupling did not
show any significant
decrease in function
 Torque Testing

• Coupling and Uncoupling Test

– Torque gage used to measure
coupling and uncoupling
• Torque greatest during first
coupling/uncoupling operation
– Wear on coupling head
– Loop keyhole elastic
deformation
• Coupling shank experienced
twist
– Test fixture represented
“Worst Case”
– Rigid cartridge vs. “Push-Pull”
Motion
 Armament Technology Facility
(ATF) Testing

• 15º Twist
– Three (3) belts of 24-M385A1 linked cartridges
– Belts fired in 3-5 round bursts as well as 12 round bursts
from MK19
– No weapon stoppages
• 30º Twist
– 3-5 round burst
– Multiple configurations
• Up to 3 cartridges linked with couplings that had a 30º twist
linked consecutively
– 3 consecutively linked couplings with 30º twist caused
weapon stoppages
• Testing ceased at 30º twist.
ATF Testing: 15º Coupling Twist
No Weapon Stoppage
ATF Testing: 30º Coupling Twist
Weapon Stoppage
 Vibration Testing

• Vibration Testing at Aberdeen Proving

Ground
– To ensure security of belt during firing from
a from moving HMMWV
– No coupling related weapon stoppages
 War Fighter Payoff

• New coupling reduces logistical burden

of requiring Ammo Supply Point (ASP)
to re-link ammo
• Ability to re-link or extend belts on-the-
fly if desired
Electronics and Sensors in 40mm Low Velocity Grenade Ammo
May 20, 2008

Jason Wasserman, 40mm Grenade Ammunition Special Projects

 Objectives

• To integrate commercial, off-the-shelf electronic

components into 40mm Low Velocity Grenade
Ammunition

• Overcome the challenges associated with integrating

commercial parts without modification
 PIR (Passive Infrared) Sensor
PIR Sensor

• Challenges
– Requires a lens that is transparent to IR frequencies and
is structurally weak
– Translucent visual access to exterior of projectile
– Proper function requires an unpotted sensor

Pusher
• Solutions
– Specialized aft geometry to allow the PIR sensor
to “see” with a wide field of view Lens
• “Legs” needed to be strong enough to withstand
potential impact loading
– Specialized pusher utilized to prevent gas leakage
from reaching the lens
• Pusher needed to be robust enough to withstand
gun pressures while sensitive enough to detach on
muzzle exit to allow the PIR sensor to “see”
 Batteries & Microphone

Battery “Spacer”
• Battery Challenges
– Size vs. usable life tradeoff
– Orientation specific
– Retention method Microphone Channels
• Solutions
– 2/3AA size used for acceptable size vs. life tradeoff
– Must be oriented parallel to axis
– Specialized “spacers” used to hold batteries together to
prevent movement and breaking connections
Microphone
• Microphone Challenges
– Requires unobstructed, open air access to exterior of
the projectile to prevent sound from being muffled or
quieted
– G-load sensitive device
• Solutions
– Specialized “spacers” used for batteries have built-in
channels for microphone and access to exterior of the
projectile
 GPS Sensor & Antenna/Wiring

• GPS Sensor Challenges

– Requires a non-metallic projectile body to prevent the
signal from being attenuated
• Solutions
– High-strength engineering polymer used to retain launch
and impact strength without impacting GPS signal

• Antenna/Wiring Challenges
– Wiring requires space in various spots in projectile body
– Antenna requires a non-metallic projectile body to
prevent the signal from being attenuated
• Solutions
– Wires are routed in cutouts of battery “spacers” and
along the sides of the batteries
– Antenna is a thin strip wrapped around the outside of
the potted electronic assembly prior to inserting into the
body
 Launch Survivability

• Projectiles were fired from the ARDEC 40mm Low Velocity

Mann Barrel
• Objective was to verify integrity and proper discard of the pusher
• Projectiles were soft caught and had signal verification
performed by a wireless connection
 Impact Survivability

• Testing was performed using an airgun to generate the required

muzzle velocities
• Projectiles were fired into a rigid steel plate to simulate worst-
case scenario impacts
• Projectiles housed a set of sensors attached by a wired
connection to a computer to record real-time impact data
• Various nose designs were analyzed and tested
 Path Forward

• Producibility Optimization
– Reduce time to assemble and pot
electronics
– Procure injection molds

• Live Fire Testing & Demonstration

– Fire projectiles into various environments
and for max range
– User demonstration
 War Fighter Payoff

• Provides a unique capability for Military

Operations on Urbanized Terrain at the
squad level
– Non Line-Of-Sight surveillance of enemy or
allies
– Enhanced Situational Awareness
– Enhanced Target Acquisition
Producibility Improvements of 40mm High and Low Velocity Liners
20 May, 2008

Adam Sorchini, 40mm Grenade Ammunition Special Projects

 Program Objectives

• M433 HEDP One-Piece Liner

(Low Velocity – M203 GL)
– Reduce cost of liner production by
combining components
M433 HEDP
– Improve efficiency of jet formation
• M430A1 HEDP Non-Fluted Liner
(High Velocity – Mk19 GMG)
– Reduce cost of liner production by
simplifying geometry
M430A1 HEDP
 Baseline Testing and M&S

• Baseline Testing
– Performed at ARDEC using
production hardware X-Ray of Jet Formation

– Jet tip formation

• Spin and no spin
• Events captured by x-ray
– Tip velocity
Penetrated RHA
– Jet straightness
– Armor penetration depth
• Spin and no spin
• RHA steel plates

M430A1 Partial Test Projectile

 Baseline Testing and M&S

• Baseline Modeling and Simulation

– Test data feeds into baseline model
• Model represents actual performance
– Baseline model is stepping stone to design
improvements
M433 HEDP One-Piece Liner

One-Piece Liner Design

1. Retaining Ring replaced by press fit
flange
2. Liner elongated and added radius
3. Liner Cap integrated into liner apex
 M433 HEDP One-Piece Liner

• Testing & Design

– Insertion & Push-Out Testing
• Baseline retaining ring strength (completed)
• Simulate integrated retaining ring insertion and push-out
strength to compare to current retaining ring performance
– Integrated Apex Sensitivity Testing
• Perform armor penetration tests to determine maximum
allowable apex thickness
– Sensitivity to initiation determined by spitback performance
– Optimize Liner Geometry
• Adjust TDP based on test data and fabricate test hardware
– Jet Characterization & Penetration
• Perform full test array to verify performance
 M433 HEDP One-Piece Liner

• Retaining Ring Insertion & Push-Out M&S

– Validated by test data

Press Tool
Retaining Ring

Ring prior to deformation

Projectile Body

Ring pushed completely in

 M433 HEDP One-Piece Liner

• Manufacturing Progress
– FCI/Trans-Matic providing manufacturing and design support
(subcontracted through DSE, Inc.)
– Multi-step draw process is used
– Multiple iterations performed to achieve complex geometry
M430A1 Non-Fluted Liner

Non-Fluted Liner Design

1. Flutes in liner removed

2. Slight radius added to liner

 M430A1 Non-Fluted Liner

• Design Testing
– Jet Characterization & Penetration
• Spin and no spin
• Multiple spin rates to be analyzed due to large
spin decay over effective range

Fluted Liner

Non-Fluted
Liner
 War Fighter Payoff

• M433 HEDP One-Piece Liner

– Lower unit cost
• Fewer pieces
• Automated assembly
– Slight increase in performance
• M430A1 HEDP Non-Fluted Liner
– Lower unit cost
• Less complexity
• Higher production rate
• Easier to measure critical dimensions
– Performance
• More consistent
• Equal at longer ranges
• Better at short ranges
 Background

• 40mm Special Projects Team started

program to baseline and improve
M430A1 HEDP and M433 HEDP 40mm
cartridges
• Baselining the cartridges involved
Spark Range testing to quantify exterior
ballistic coefficients
• Team showed a desire to identify some
contributors to flight dynamics
 Objectives

• Produce models that track location of

center of mass of M430A1 HEDP and
M433 HEDP projectiles throughout their
flight and arming cycle of their M549A1
PIBD and M550 PIBD fuzes
 Transparent Views of Projectiles

M430A1 HEDP Projectile M433 HEDP Projectile

 Detailed Views of Fuzes

M549A1 PIBD Fuze M550 PIBD Fuze

M430A1 Fuze Arming
 M430A1 CG Data

Cross Sectional CM Change

Z Location CM (inches)

Y Location CM (inches)
M433 Fuze Arming
 M433 CG Data

M433 Cross Sectional CG Change

Path of CG change during fuze arming

Inches

Inches
 Warfighter Payoff

• Clearer understanding of fuze function

– Establishes basis for simulating
improvements
– Enhances tool set for failure investigations
 Technical Reports

• For more Information See Technical

Reports
– ARAEW-TR-08001 “Center of Mass
Location Changes in M430A1 Throughout
Fuze Arming Cycle”
– ARAEW-TR-06003 “M433 Center of Mass
Location Throughout Fuze Arming Cycle”
 40mm Day/Night Practice Cartridge
for MK13/XM320/M203 Grenade Launchers
May 20, 2008

Peter Martin
40mm Grenade Ammunition Special Projects
Peter.j.martin@us.army.mil
 BACKGROUND

• SOCOM identified need in 2003 for 40mm

practice cartridge that would facilitate night
and day training with EGLM

• SOCOM elected to pursue solution under

foreign comparative test program
 OBJECTIVES
XM1110 D/N Program

OBJECTIVE
of
The XM1110 D/N PROGRAM
• SHORT TERM (6 months)
– Provide SOCOM practice round to facilitate night as well as
day training w/ MK13/EGLM
• Low cost
• Non dud producing
• Environmentally friendly

• LONG TERM (18+ months)

– Provide all DOD practice round to facilitate night as well as
day training w/ M203 and XM320 grenade launchers
• Low cost
• Non dud producing
• Environmentally friendly
 SOLUTION

• Capitalizing on the success of the 40mm HV D/N Practice Ctg (MK

281 Mod 1) - Rheinmetall Nico of Germany
– same propulsion system (ctg case/primer/propellant ) as the
current M781 practice ctg
– Chemiluminescent material payload added to the orange powder
of the M781 projectile
 PROGRAM HIGLIGHTS

• Key Performance Parameters were established and met (April 2007)

• Successful user trials (IOT) conducted (April 2008)
• Qualification & and ballistic table testing (3QTR 2008)
• Initial fielding of the XM1110 ctg targeted for 2009
 KEY PERFORMANCE
PARAMETERS

• Weapon Compatibility
– Threshold - safely function and fire from M203 grenade launcher without
modification to weapon system
– Objective - safely function and fire from M203, XM320 and MK13/EGLM
without modification to weapon system including current range graduations
on weapon sight
• Dispersion
– Threshold - similar ballistics to M433 HEDP Cartridge
– Objective - ballistic match to M433 HEDP Cartridge
• Signature Visibility
– Day signature visible at 350 meters. Night signature visible at 350 meters
with or without GEN III night vision devices
• Reliability
– Threshold - reliability > M781 TP Ctg
– Objective - reliability >= M433 HEDP Ctg
• UXO/ Range Fires
– None
TEST PERFORMANCE VIDEO - DAY
TEST PERFORMANCE VIDEO - NIGHT
 PATH FORWARD

• SOCOM Milestone C and production release

planned for Sept 08

• SOCOM initial fielding expected by 4QTR 09

• Army and Marine Corps adoption decision

expected in early FY09
 WARFIGHTER PAYOFF

• SOCOM search for an economical day/night

training cartridge is on path to success

• Concept of chemiluminescent marker for low

velocity 40mm ammo viable solution for night
signature

• XM1110 has high potential to soon become DOD

common practice round with all 40mm low
velocity weapons
 JNLWP Update to the
International Infantry & Joint Services
Small Arms Symposium

Mr Swenson
Acquisition Division Chief, Joint NL Weapons Directorate
(703)432-0906, DSN 378-0906
kevin.swenson@usmc.mil
Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release
20 May 07
 JSSAST Symposium

• Combined with JNLWP’s Joint Integration Program (JIP)

• JNLWP Attendance
• Wednesday Live Fire Demonstration:
– Weapons: H&K (XM-320), Milkor (M32), CMore (MASS), Beretta
(CKER), Metal Storm (MAUL), FN-303 Less Lethal Launcher,
– NL Munitions: Rheinmetall (Nico) BTV-1 Flash Bang Grenade,
Taser XREP, BE Meyers, N Light & Thales Laser Dazzlers, BAE
Extended Range Blunt Impact / Marking Munitions, CSI – 12
Gauge / 40mm Warning Munitions, etc..
• Thursday – Non-Lethal Breakout Panel
– 1050-1230
• Friday – JIP Meeting here at the Fairmont

LETHAL / NON-LETHAL INTEROPERABILITY!

 Prioritized DoD NL Capability Gaps
(Top 10 of 36)
CP TASKS
Top Ten Tasks • Deny
1) Stop Vehicle (small, confined, single) • Move
2) Stop Vehicle (medium, confined, • Disable
CM TASKS
single) • Suppress
• Stop Vehicle
3) Stop Vehicle (large, confined, single) • Disable Vehicle
4) Stop Vessel (small, confined, single, • Stop Vessel
[friendly anchored]) • Disable Vessel
5) Suppress Individuals (confined, • Stop Arcft on Ground
single/few) • Disable Arcft on
6) Suppress Individuals (open, many)
Ground
• Divert Arcft in Air
7) Stop Vessel (small, open, single,
• Deny Access to
[friendly underway])
Facility
8) Deny Access into/out of an area to
individuals (confined, single/few/ many) CBA Membership
9) Deny Access into/out of an area to J2/J3/J8 PACOM USA JNLWD
individuals (open, single/few/ many) JFCOM CENTCOM USCG OSD AT&L
EUCOM STRATCOM USMC
10) Move Individuals through an area *HECOE
(open, many) NORTHCOM USN
USAF
 Current Acquisition Programs

Counter Personnel - Developmental Threshold Range At / Below 100M

Improved Flash
Mission Payload Module MK19 NL Munition X-26 Taser Bang Grenade

Counter Personnel - Developmental Threshold Range At / Below 300M

Joint Non-Lethal Warning Munitions Airburst Non-Lethal Munition

Counter Material

Vehicle Lightweight Arresting Device

Net & Remote Deployment Device Improved Acoustic Hailing Device
 Joint Integration Program (JIP)

Description:
A Forum established to Coordinate a Comprehensive Program that Maintains State-of-the-Art NLCS for each Service
through Product Demonstrations, Sharing Lessons Learned and Evaluating COTS Products for Potential Inclusion into
Service NLCSs.
Recent Accomplishments:
™ Last Semi-Annual JIP Meeting @ Nellis AFB, CA (Nov 07)
™ Next Meeting – 23 Mar here
™ Munitions Testing Standardization MOA (In Coord.)
Ongoing Projects:
™ Evaluate Re-usable 40mm Training Rounds (USA)
™ Evaluate Portable Entanglement Device (USCG)
™ Launch cup w/ Adapters for two Shotguns and User Evaluation (USAF)
™ Extended Range (500-1000 Meters) Warning Munitions (USN)
Future Activities:
™ Evaluating FY09 Candidate Submissions
™ Next Semi-Annual Meeting – TBD (Maritime Venue?)
JNLWD Lead, USMC, USA, USN, USCG, USAF Voters and SOCOM Interest

Industry Contact – Doug Esposito, American Systems

douglas.esposito@americansystems.com
 Less Lethal Technologies
MECHANICAL & KINETIC ELECTROMAGNETIC Advanced Materials

RADIO INFRARED 6 7 ULTRAVIOLET X-RAY

BLUNT IMPACT DEVICES 1 ELECTRICALS 2
FREQUENCY
3 MICROWAVE 4 MILLIMETER 5 VISIBLE LIGHT 8 RIOT CONTROL AGENTS
FREQUENCY WAVES
Examples: Examples: Examples: Examples: Examples:
Examples:
BARRIERS Stun Guns RF Devices
Examples:
Continuous Wave and Active Denial COIL Lasers Dazzlers Laser Ionizer FOAMS
TASER® Munitions Electromagnetic Pulse Pulsed High Power Technology Hydrogen/Deuterium Fluoride (HF/DF) Broadband/white light
Microwaves TBD
NETS/ENTANGLEMENTS Wide/Ultra Wide Band Solid State Lasers ANTI-TRACTION MATERIAL
Primary NL Effects: Primary NL Effects: Primary NL Effects: Primary NL Effects: Primary NL Effects Primary NL Effects Primary NL Effects:
SPIKES/CALTROPS Electo-Muscular Electronic Disruption Electronic Disruption Counter-Personnel Counter-Personnel (Deter/Incapacitate) Distract/delay/deter
Counter Personnel &
Counter Material
MALODORANTS
Incapacitation (EMI (Engines/IEDs/Comm) Repel Effects Counter-Material Illuminate applications
OBSCURANTS
ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM
THERMOBARICS

MEDIUM FREQUENCY

SUBMILLIMETER WAVES
VOICE FREQUENCY
LOW FREQUENCY

HIGH FREQUENCY

HIGH FREQUENCY
LOW FREQUENCY

LIGH FREQUENCY

NEAR ULTRAVIOLET
IGH FREQUENCY

NEAR INFRARED
EXTREMELY

INTERMEDIATE
FREQUENCY
SUPER HIGH
(CM WAVES)

(MM WAVES)
EXTREMELY
FREQUENCY

FAR INFRARED

VISIBLE LIGHT

HARD X-RAYS
ULTRAVIOLET

SOFT X-RAYS
VERY LOW

INFRARED
REACTANTS

ULTRA
VERY

VACUUM
MARKERS
ELF VF ELF LF MF HF VHF UHF SHF EHF COMBUSTION MODIFIERS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ACOUSTIC ANCILLARY
AVERSIVE SOUNDS
ENCAPSULANTS
PHASED ARRAYS
NANOPARTICLES
UNDERWATER ACOUSTICS
NON-LETHAL CASINGS
 JNLWP FY09 Technology BAA
• Non-lethal focus areas (in priority order):
1) Vessel stopping
2) Clear a space without entry
3) Divert aircraft
4) Individual and crowd behavior
5) Human effects/effectiveness and safety thresholds of NL
stimuli
6) Stimulating academia to promote NLW applied research
7) Advanced materials and payloads

• Release Date: (Est.) 30 May 08

• Close Date: 30 Jun 08

• Website:
– https://www.jnlwp.com/admin/solicitations.asp
 JNLWP Education Opportunities

• EDUCATION
– Pennsylvania State University on-line course: NON-
LETHAL WEAPONS: POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND
TECHNOLOGIES CERTIFICATE
– www.fayette.psu.edu/ccps – application form
available online
– JNLWD Point of Contact – LCDR (USN) Cabot
Aycock, cabot.aycock@usmc.mil

• WEBSITE – https:/www.jnlwp.com
JNLWD Point of Contact – Teresa Ovalle
teresa.ovalle@usmc.mil
 Summary
• Less Lethal Capabilities are relevant in today’s
fight against terrorism, on both the domestic and
international front

• Range is a significant capability gap for Non-

Lethal Weapons

• There are a number of promising new

technologies that are poised to enhance Less
Lethal Capabilities

• The application of Non-lethal force across the

Escalation of Force spectrum is critical to success
U.S. Marine Infantry Weapons Update
for the
Joint Services Small Arms
Synchronization Team

20 May 2008
LtCol Tracy Tafolla USMC
Program Manager, Infantry Weapons
(703) 432-4641 Tracy.Tafolla@usmc.mil
 Focus of Effort

Focus of effort is on increasing

the capability and reliability of
infantry weapons, in order to
increase the skill and confidence
of Marines to best defeat
multidimensional threats across
the spectrum of conflict.
Mitch Paige, January 1943

2
 Holistic Integration
Developing Marines and weapons together as a system…

• Marine
• Weapon
•Sight
• Ammunition

3
 Future Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges
• Increase capability while decreasing burden on the Marine
• Gather consensus on service rifle replacement caliber
• Provide scaleable effects – lethal and nonlethal
Opportunities
• Advances in modular, interchangeable design
• Advances in metallurgy
• Advances in ammunition
• Advances in power generation and storage

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Questions?

12
Protect Life
 TASER Electronic Control Devices

TASER Devices are a well known law enforcement capability for delivering
complete yet reversible physical incapacitation. These devices provide the
warfighter the ability to control difficult situations where EOF could otherwise
result in lethal response.
 Existing TASER Devices
TASER Devices are an established product for military use
Part # Item NSN GSA Price MSRP
44000 M26 1095‐01‐545‐5743 $ 399.95 $599.95 600 to DoD, 1400 to other federal agencies (DOJ, DOI, DHS, etc.)
26000 X26 1095‐01‐528‐1930 $ 800.95 $914.95 3000 to DoD, 6500 to other fedreal agencies (DOJ, DOI, DHS, etc.)
44205 21ft Sim Cartridge 1095‐01‐528‐6893 $ 18.07 $31.97 Blue: For training, includes short probe & non‐conducting tether
44200 21ft Std Cartridge 1095‐01‐528‐6894 $ 19.02 $32.97 Silver Doors: 21ft range with the standard probe configuration
44203 25ft XP Cartridge 1095‐01‐533‐1733 $ 21.87 $35.97 Green Doors: 25ft range with the XP probe configuraiton
44206 35ft XP Cartridge 1095‐01‐545‐5742 $ 23.65 $38.95 Orange Doors: 35ft range, XP probes, but prefered installation
26701 XDPM 6135‐01‐528‐6895 $ 33.20 $39.95 Extended grip and spare cartridge clip
26752 TASERCAM 5836‐01‐559‐9121 $ 399.95 $499.95 Rechargeable Audio‐Video capability replaces XDPM
85001 XRAIL 1095‐01‐534‐4374 $ 100.00 $125.00 Attachement system for X26 to allow mounting on Picatinny rails
*Other configurations of devices and holsters available on request

Federal/GSA authorized distributor: Aardvark Tactical

www.nonlethal.com
800-997-3773
 Existing TASER Devices
US Army is lead for Type Classification of the TASER X26
• Performance/Reliability Qualification Testing - Completed
• Launched Electrode Stun Device CPD - Signed
• Operational Evaluation/Testing - Underway
• Milestone C - Documentation in process, scheduled for 4QFY08

TASER International is committed to supporting TC

• IR&D based on feedback of deficiencies
• Improvements made to design and manufacturing process to improve ilities
• Improved shipping process and packaging to facilitate DoD requirements
• Improved cartridge and packaging for MIL environments & non-reg. shipping
 Traditional Military Operations
Lethal Force
– Lethal—Shoot to Kill
Force

– End State: Complete Incapacitation

• Means: One Well-aimed round
of

i nt
k Po
Brea
Policing Actions
Spectrum

– Capability to Influence Motivational Behavior

– End State: Task Disruption; Dispersal; Crowd Control
• Means: Non-Lethal Capabilities, e.g.,
– Noise amplifiers,
– Rubber bullets, bean bags
– Light distraction
– Heat generators
 TASER Devices for Military Operations
Lethal Application

Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation
Lethal — Shoot to Kill.
Force

Desired End State: Complete Incapacitation

Method of Achieving the End State: Well-aimed round
Escalation of Force
of

k Po
i nt Requires a Capability to Complement Lethal Force
Brea
Desired End State: Complete Incapacitation
Spectrum

Method of Achieving the End State: TASER NMI

Policing Actions
Capability to Influence Motivational Behavior
Desired End State: Disruption; Dispersal; Compliance
TASER Device Risks
Overview of Recent Research
2007
•16 Journal Articles Published and19 Presentations

•Approximately 200+ volunteers of varying degrees of

health were monitored Pre, During, Post and 24 hours Post
ECD exposure in 2007.

•Blood Chemistries, Stress Hormones, Breathing, Body

Core Temperature, Heart Monitoring via12 lead EKG and
Ultrasound were some of the data points collected.

•Recent news about published studies are available at:

www.TASER.com/research/Science

9/20/2007 8
 TASER Effectiveness and Safety
• Effectiveness
– 94% effective in field use and proven track record
• Accountability
– Dataport download feature
– TASER CAM
– Anti-Felon ID confetti
• Safety
– 2000+ pages of medical and field test data
• Injury Reduction
– Consistent and significant injury reduction
 TASER SHOCKWAVE
• Shockwave for area denial
– Suspicious Pedestrian traffic
– Vehicle/asset protection
– Containment

• Modularity for flexible use

– Interlocking features and “Daisy
Chainable”

• First units available May, 2008

 TASER International Wireless Projectile
XREP - eXtended Range Electronic Projectile
• 14 g; wireless; range 65 feet
• Beta testing underway
• Final design summer 2008
• Production 1Q 2009

X12 Less-Lethal Shotgun

• by Mossberg
• Radial™ ammunition key
• High twist rifling
• Distinctive coloring
40 mm HEMI Program Overview
Human Electro-Muscular Incapacitation

• DOD term adopted for Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation

• Intended to describe an effect but… associated with

electronic projectiles

• The Army is lead service for HEMI Program of Record

• HEMI COE underway
• Capabilities Development Document (service requirement) is
being built around the 40mm platform
40mm HEMI Cartridge
• Why 40mm?
• Greater weapon availability
• Emerging requirement
• Greater range possible
• Greater attainment possible

• TASER International is under contract from the JNLWD for

40mm concept development culminating in a field
demonstration of 40mm HEMI cartridges
• 24 month program
• $2.5M contract
Protect Life
Armament Division

NDIA
Armament Division
Small Arms Systems Symposium
And
Firing Demonstration

Status and Activity Update 2008

19-22 May 2008

Dave Broden
Armament Division Chair

1_
Small Arms Systems

Enhancing
Enhancing Small
Small Arms
Arms Effectiveness
Effectiveness in
in
Current
Current and
and Future
Future Operations
Operations

Address
Address and
and Focus
Focus on
on the
the Theme
Theme

DoD
DoD and
and Homeland
Homeland Defense
Defense Capabilities
Capabilities

• Joint Force operations and capability • Push technology envelope(s)

• Response to asymmetric threats • Push integration efficiencies
• Adapt systems and technology for • Add functional capabilities
operational flexibility — Jointness • Introduce new systems
– Responsiveness • Ensure readiness and capability
“Lessons
“Lessons Learned”
Learned” —
— Readiness/Capability
Readiness/Capability —
—
Responsive
Responsive Force
Force —
— Jointness
Jointness —
— Technology
Technology Change
Change
Shape
Shape the
the Future
Future —
— Enable
Enable the
the Force
Force
2_
 2008 Armament Division Overview

• Armament Division Overview Status

• Key Strategic Focus Initiatives Impacting NDIA—Armament
Division
• Highlights of NDIA Status Report and Division Leadership
Meeting
• Communicate NDIA Initiatives
• Seek Expanded Dialogue and Input from Memberships
• Seek Open Dialogue to Identify Suggestions to Ensure Value to
all NDIA Membership
• Emphasize NDIA Impact Communications

NDIA
NDIA Management
Management
Headquarters
Headquarters and
and Division
Division Leadership
Leadership
Is
Is
Focused
Focused to
to Ensure
Ensure Value
Value and
and Impact
Impact Meeting
Meeting
3_
Mission
Mission Objectives
Objectives
NDIA Missions

• Advocate: Cutting Edge Technologies, Superior Weapons,

Equipment, Training, and Support for America’s
4 and First Responders

• Promote: Responsive and Vigorous Government-Industry

National Security Team.

• Provide: Forums for the Exchange of Information between

Government and Industry on Matters of National
Security.

Organization Objective: Provide “Value Added” Symposiums

and Activities Ensuring Mission
Objectives

4_
Armament Division---Division Activity

• Division Goals:
– Provide a Forum for Industry and Government Partnership
Addressing All Types of Armament Systems Ensuring:
• Assessment of Current Armament Systems
• Vision and Awareness of Emerging Needs, Technologies
and Systems--- “Lead the Way Ahead”
• Enabling Superior Operational Capability Thru Integration
of Advanced Technology

• Division Approach to Goals:

• Maintain and Strengthen Government—Industry
Partnerships
• View Symposia as Training and Education Opportunity
• Focus on Continuous Improvement of Symposia
• Implement Symposia Themes with Focus and Impact

5_
Armament Division---Division Activity

• Armament Division Management Approach:

– Monthly Division Telecom with NDIA Staff

– Armament Division Executive Meeting —Strategies etc.

- October (with AUSA)

– Executive Committee Meetings

- At Symposia– (March-May)
- Summer Meeting (June)
- Fall Meeting (October—with AUSA)

– Symposium Planning
- Gun and Missile Systems—December
- Small Arms Systems—January

– Communications: On Going Regular Email Status Etc. As Required

6_
Armament Division--- Leadership Focus Meeting

• NDIA National Headquarters and Division Leadership Meeting

– Meeting April 2008
– Focus on Status and Vision for NDIA
– Key Topics:
• NDIA Status Activity Overview
• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM)—Initiatives and Actions
• Top Issues—Input and Status Re: Member Benefits
• Legal/Ethics
• Logo Style
• WebSite Upgrade
• Division Cooperation and Growth
• Links to Chapters
•
7_
Armament Division
• Key Armament Division Activities:

– Annual Symposia
- Small Arms Systems
- Gun and Missile Systems

– Monthly Armament Division Leadership Telecoms

– Strategic Focus Improvement Initiatives

• Across Division—Inter-Committee—Address a Issue
• Within Committees

– Combined Division Symposium —Planned at Three Year Intervals—

Planned for 2010

– Education and Training Initiatives during Symposiums

- Successful During Gun and Missile 2008— Acquisition Training
8_
Leadership

Objective:
Objective: Coordinated
CoordinatedFocus
Focusand
andVision
Visionfor
forArmament
ArmamentSystems
Systems

Armaments
Division
Dave Broden
Committees
Committees

Gun
Small Arms And Future
Systems Missiles TBD
Brian Tasson

Brian Berger TBD

Guns/Ammunition Rockets/Missiles

Themes, areas
Responsive discussed; no
ResponsiveOrganization
Organization––Ensures
EnsuresRelevance
Relevance
specific action
Scope
Scope––Area
Areaof
ofInterest
Interest––Responsibility
Responsibility
Definition Clarity
Definition Clarity

Establishing
Establishingand
andEnsuring
EnsuringStrategic
StrategicFocus
Focus
9_
Armament Division

• Leadership:
- Armament Division Chair:
• Dave Broden
• Broden Resource Solutions LLC

- Small Arms Systems Chair:

• Brian Berger
• GD-OTS-Canada

- Gun and Missile Systems Chair:

• Brian Tasson ( May 2008)
• ATK –Mission Systems Division

10_
Committee Scope
Gun and Missile Systems
Small Arms Systems Guns and Ammunition Missiles and Rockets
• Individual weapon(s) • Medium caliber systems • Tactical missiles and
• Crew served weapon(s) • Tank systems rockets
(e.g., ≤ 40mm) • Mortar systems • Shoulder Fired Systems
• Lightweight Systems • Artillery systems • Ground launched
• Ammunition • Naval gun systems • Aircraft/helicopter
– Enhanced/lightweight • Aircraft/helicopter systems launched
– “Green” • Precision systems • Precision Systems
• Full life cycle management • Platform Integration • System Integration
• Supportability • Manned/robotic • Manned/robotic
– Training applications applications
– Logistics • System integration • Life cycle management
• Target Acquisition/Fire • TA/FCS
Control System (TA/FCS) • Supportability
• Remote Stabilized Turret • Life cycle management
System • Stabilized Turret System
• System Integration Synergism t Commonality
• Networked capabilities
• Non lethal
• Homeland Defense systems
Common
CommonEnabling
EnablingTechnologies,
Technologies,Modeling/Simulation,
Modeling/Simulation,Man-Tech
Man-Tech

Links
Linksto
toOther
OtherCommittees
Committees
11_
2008 Symposium

Guns
Gunsand
andAmmunition
Ammunition Rockets
Rocketsand
andMissiles
Missiles

Strengthening
Strengthening Capability
Capability through
through People
People and
and Technology
Technology
Addressing
Addressingthe
theTheme!
Theme!

•• Joint
JointCapability
Capability
•• Joint Requirements
Joint Requirements
•• Readiness
ReadinessCapability
Capability
•• Linking
Linking Peopleand
People and
Purpose
Purpose

Ensuring Readiness of People, Technology and Systems

Applying
ApplyingCommon
CommonAdvanced
AdvancedTechnologies
Technologiesand
andIntegrated
IntegratedSystems
Systems

Enabling
Enablingan
anIntegrated
Integrated and
andResponsive
ResponsiveJoint
JointForce
Force
Capability
Capability
12_
Symposium Attendance Realizing Growth

• Gun and Missile Systems

Attendance---350-500 in last 5 years
•Small Arms Systems
Attendance—400-550 in last 5 years

Expanded Participation
Strategic Focus
New Attendees and repeat attendees
Growth of Exhibits
Continued International participation
•• Interest
Interest and
and Activity
Activity Strategically
Strategically Focused
Focused
•Armament
•Armament Division
Division meets
meets Needs
Needs ofof
Government
Government and
and Industry
Industry
13_
Armament Division---Division Activity

• Executive Committee Discussions/Decisions:

– Strategic Focus Topic Considerations
- Review/Discussion of Topics
- Decision Addressed Desired Role of Committees
• Primary Focus is on Symposia only
• Other Topics Addressed on Volunteers Only-Special Case
– Symposia Improvements and Changes
- Implementing Quality Initiatives to Ensure High Quality in All
Presentations—Content-Format—Value etc.
- Seeking Theme Topic Presentations vs. Response to Call for
Papers Only
– Addressing Executive Committee Membership
- Uniformed Personnel
- Industry Mix of Companies etc.--
14_
Armament Division– Education Initiatives

• Focus on Evolving and Changing DOD Education Requirements:

– Education Needs are a National Priority
- STEM Division Formed and Moving Effectively
- NDIA Can/Should Impact
– Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) is a
Critical National Need
- Increasing Attention Throughout the Nation
• Impacts Not Only Defense but all Technology Areas
• Aerospace/Defense Will be Significantly Impacted
Babyboomer Retirements
Low Numbers/Low Interest in Education Pipeline
– NDIA STEM Initiative Including PLTW Establishes Focus
- Action: NDIA Member Companies—Members-
Divisions/Chapters Must Commit to Programs Enabling
STEM Education Incentives etc.

15_
Armament Division—Education Initiatives

• STEM Initiatives:

– Executive Committee Members Will Encourage Their

Companies to Seek Partnerships with Schools via PLTW etc.

– Executive Committee Discussion of How Armament Division

can Support STEM Initiatives
• PLTW
• Other Unique Initiatives

– Armament Division Annual Report Presented at Symposia

Highlight Importance of STEM
- 2008 Report will Emphasize NDIA Partnership with PLTW

– PLTW == Project Lead the Way

16_
Armament Division– Education Initiatives

• Focus on Evolving and Changing DOD Education Requirements:

– Suggested Action Plan:
- Division/Chapter Commitment to STEM Workforce Division
• Establish STEM Initiatives In Each Division/Chapter
Contact Schools—Link to PLTW
Seek Similar Initiatives Where Appropriate
Mentoring/Student Days etc. in Member Companies
• Suggest STEM Workforce Division Establish a Brochure
etc.— Outlining Benefits of STEM Education and Career
• Seek to Support “Intern Programs” in Companies and
Communities
• Utilize Retired STEM Career Personnel in Mentoring
• Address Expanded “Life Long Learning” and “Education
Updates” with Babyboomer etc. to Extend Careers and
assist in New Students

17_
2008 Top Defense Issues

• Issue 1: Sustain The US National Security Workforce Advantage

• Issue 2: Ensuring The Integrity and Responsiveness of the

Acquisition Process

• Issue 3: Maintain a Viable Defense Industrial Base to Ensure

Warfighter Readiness

• Issue 4: Improving Small Business Access to Defense Contracts

• Issue 5: Preparing for Defense Transformation

• Issue 6: Ensure International Competitiveness of US Defense

Industry

NDIA Board of Directors Approved Focus

NDIA Focus Issues to Congress
18_
Armament Division—Strategic Issues

• Influence Process and Activities:

– Top Issues and Related Actions
– National Defense Magazine
– “What Do Division Members/Executive Committee See as
Issues?”
– Symposia—Way to Communicate and Impact
– ‘Sponsorship of “Awareness Briefings/Meetings”
– Special Studies
– Special “Endorsements– e.g. STEM— PLTW etc.
• Attention to Education Needs--Opportunities
– Chapter—Focus Topics
– Divisions---Identify Issues---Communicate Impact
– Links with Other Business Organizations

19_
Armament Division—Strategic Issues

• Participation in Development of Annual Top Issues:

– Communicating Results of Actions
• Confirms Value—Increases Interest
• Need Clarity of Results and Impact on Industry and
Members
– Division Chairs Must Include Top Issues in Exec. Comm.
Agenda
• Communicate Top Issue Up and Down
– Division Committees Need “Annual Call for Issue Topics”
• Currently Informal—National Should Require
– Include a Top Issues Presentation in Each Symposium
• Need to Work Out Who and How
Coordinated Input from National—TBD?

20_
Armament Division—Strategic Issues

• Developing Annual Top Issues:

– Objectives:
- Division/Chapter Participation
- Individual Membership Interest/Value/Benefit
– Observation:
- “Top Issues”– Are Perceived as a NDIA Leadership Topic
• Divisions/Chapters/Members—Do not Relate/Connect to
Issues-----Emphasis is Focused on Networking
– Considerations:
- NDIA Communicate “How Divisions/Chapters/Members can
“Help Top Issue Action”– Need Flow-Up—Flow Down Action
- Communicate Status/Results of “Top Issue Actions”
- National Work with Divisions/Chapters to Include a Top Issue
Topic in Meeting/Symposia (Speakers, Outline of Content
etc.)

21_
Armament Division—Strategic Issues

• NDIA Impact and Influence: “Top Five” and Sub/Related Topics

– On Membership:
- National Defense Magazine
- Symposia and Conferences
– On Congress:
- Top Issues
- Legislative Breakfasts/Luncheons etc.
– On DOD:
- Policy Statements/Recommendations
- Special Studies
– On Individual Services:
- Special Studies
– On Programs—Technology:
- Symposia Themes and Topics
- Highlight or Focus on Key Programs or Technologies

22_
Armament Division---Division Activity

• Strategic Focus Topics-Actions:

• Objective: Implement Actions to Enhance Armament Division
Effectiveness and Value

• Approach:
– Executive Committee Leadership Established List of Topics
– Committee Members Expanded List
– Executive Committee Established “Top 5”

• Status and Actions:

– Executive Committees Established Priority to Symposia Only
- Participation re: Special Tasks etc. by Volunteers Only, not a
Committee Responsibility.
- Implementing “Top 5” and Related Topics—Open to Others
23_
Armament Division---Division Activity

Strategic Focus Top Five Actions

Number Topic Gun and Missile G&M Small Arms Small Arms
Committee Comments Committee Comments
1 Training Element Implemented Strong Interest Under Goal to add in
In Symposia 2008 Committee Discussion – 2009
participation High Interest
2 Executive Committee Evolving— Will add focus Responsibilitie Will add depth
Subcommittees Established and depth s Outlined— and focus

3 Rigorous Evolving with Needs some Process used- Link with

Presentation some specific sort of Metric updated to Subcommittee
Selection Process criteria for selection improve will help.
4 Presentation Review Increased Focus on Progress but Working with
for: Objectives, Attention and Presenters to more attention Presenters
Conclusion, Impact Focus-In Call Clarify planned-In
for Papers etc. Call for Papers
5 Intra-Divisional Topics and Committee Topics and Committee
Innovation Teams Discussions Volunteers to Discussions Volunteers to
Work Work
24_
Armament Division---Division Activity

Strategic Focus Top Five Actions

Number Topic Gun and Missile G&M Small Arms Small Arms
Committee Comments Committee Comments
6 Committee Mentor— Discussed- Need But No Plan to Interest is
Protégé No Action Current Implement to Strong
Action Grow
Leaders
7 Symposia Theme Focus of Planning Focus on Increased
Focus 2008 addressed 2008 Attention
Planning this Planning
effectively
8 Industry Message to Industry has Balance Adding
Presentation Industry to responded Improved- Industry
Emphasis vs. Gov’t- Present has effectively Must Award and
evolve balance been continue to Emphasis of
effective work Panels
9

10

25_
Armament Division---Division Activity

• Coordinated Symposia: 2010

2010
Symposium
Symposium
– Division Will Implement Coordinated Symposia 2010
- Gun and Missile System Committee
- Small Arms Systems Committee
– Format: Attendance
Attendance
- Common Location G&MS---350
G&MS---350Annual
Annual
- Common Week SAS---450
SAS---450Annual
Annual
Combined/Joint
Combined/Joint Est.
Est.500-600
500-600
- Shared Facility
- Joint Program Planning Team
- Concurrent Sessions
• Each Committee Will Maintain Identity—Separate Meetings
• Common Sessions Where Beneficial
Keynotes—
Common/Shared Technologies
Training/Education etc.
26_
Armament Division---Division Activity

• Collaboration with Sister Divisions:

– Significant Opportunity and Potential For Synergism
– Divisions of Interest (Partial List—Examples)
- Fuze Recommend:
Recommend:
- Manufacturing Division
DivisionChairs
Chairs
Identify
Identify
- Homeland Security Opportunities
Opportunities
- Combat Vehicles for
forCooperation
Cooperation
And
And
- Robotics
Joint
JointSymposia
Symposia
– Other NDIA Elements:
- Precision Strike

– Opportunities Addressed:
- Coordinate Symposia—Common Location and Time
- Share Speakers and Program Content

27_
NDIA Communications

• National Defense Magazine

– Emphasis on relevant and timely topics
– Frequently source of media, DoD, and Congressional reference
• Website
– Symposium presentations available — attendee access
– Complementary information
– Full list of activity
• Top Public Policy Issues — prioritized — addressed to Congress —
strengthen the community
• Key Priority Issues/Topics —Addressed to Impact Defense Industry

NDIA
NDIA Messages
Messages and
and Content
Content Has
Has Impact
Impact
and
and

28_
Website
Website Used
Used Extensively
Extensively as
as Resource
Resource
NDIA International Symposium Links

Objective: International cooperation and integration of symposiums

benefiting industry and Department of Defense to
encourage partnerships for development, production, and
interoperability

Approach: • Coordination of NDIA Armament Division programs with

“Symposium at Shrivenham” The Royal Military College
of Science
• Common presentations and panel participants is a
strong “open door” resource

European
European Small
Small Arms
Arms and
and Cannon
Cannon Symposium
Symposium
August
August 2008
2008

29_
Armament Division Status --- “A Look To The Future”

• Status in Recent Years

- Strong and Growing Attendance in most Symposiums
- Integration of New Approaches in Symposiums
• Continued Reliance on Call For Papers vs. Finding the Right
Presentations—Executive Committee Actions
- Generally Positive Comments from Attendees “BUT”
- Definite Interest in Integrating Content to “ADD VALUE”

• Looking Ahead
- Executive Committee Establish and Implement a Strategic Vision
- Executive Committee Leadership Initiatives vs. Management of what
comes along
- Establishing Continuous Improvement Approach
- Ensuring Value Added is Demonstrated in All Meetings
- Responsive to NDIA Strategic Focus Initiatives
30_
Armament Division 2008 Challenges

• Ensuring Focus on NDIA Mission Statement

– Strategic Focus Initiatives

• Communicate NDIA Messages and Effectiveness

– “Branding Impact”—Clarify What is NDIA
• Capturing Symposium Attendee and Membership Topics of
Interest in Programs and Activities

• Ensure Membership Awareness of Top NDIA Congressional

Issues and Impact

• Seek Symposium and Related Activity which Impact Capability

and Responsiveness
31_
Strategic Focus Emphasis

• Effective Communications and Links Across Government and

Industry

• Ensuring Innovation in Technology and Systems

• Strengthening the Industrial Base —Recognizing the Need

• Building an Integrated Team —Industry and Government

•Promoting Communication with “Value Added” Content

32_
Leadership Vision

NDIA Armament Division Is:

• A relevant Voice and Forum--Enabling Impact to Issues/Topics
• Meeting NDIA Mission Statements with Strategic Focus
• Responsive to DoD Community and Industry Challenges
• A Forum for DoD/Industry Interaction Discussion of “Lessons
Learned” and Needs
• Supporting National Defense through People Resources,
Networking, and Symposiums
• Transforming to Ensure Relevance to Changing Military,
Geopolitical Environments, Technology, and Industrial Base
Resources
The
The NDIA
NDIA Community
Community isis the
the
Resource
Resource ofof Choice
Choice For
For Excellence
Excellence in
in
National
National Defense
Defense Topics/Communications
Topics/Communications
33_
 2008 Armament Division Highlights

• Symposium Attendance Strong and Growing

• Symposium Exhibits Effective and Quality Enhanced

• Attention to Strategic Focus Topics Enhances Effectiveness

• Executive Committee activity strengthened an increased

• Government and Industry Partnership in Division leadership

demonstrated

Armament
Armament Division
Division leadership
leadership strength
strength
enables
enables strategic
strategic focus
focus to
to address
address current
current
and
and future
future needs
needs
34_
Take-Away Thoughts

• NDIA Mission is Focused to Strength, Responsiveness and

People
• NDIA Strategic Focus Committed to Continuous Improvement—
– “Value Added”, Responsive, and Impacting Issues and People
• Collaboration of Division Activities Offers Expanded Programs
and Symposia Efficiency
• Listening to the Symposia Interest of Members is Key to
Effective Programs—
• Training and Education Segment Address DOD and Industry
Changes and Priorities –PLTW for the Future Workforce
NDIA
NDIA Strategic
Strategic Focus
Focus Ensures:
Ensures:
“Value
“Value Added”
Added” Activity
Activity with
with Impact
Impact
Enabling
Enabling
National
National Defense
Defense Objectives
Objectives
Through
Through
35_
Systems,
Systems, Technology
Technology and
and People
People
Experimental Performance Analysis
on Recoil Pad for Reducing
Firing Shock Force

NDIA International Infantry & Joint Services

Small Arms Systems Symposium

May 19-22, 2008

Joon-Ho Lee*, Eui-Jung Choe, Je-Wook Chae

Agency for Defense Development, Korea
3 LDC
Jeong-Hoon Kang
S&T Daewoo, Korea
 Introduction
□ Recoil (Kick)
9 Physical property acting on rifle by firing
Æ Momentum of rifle = Momentum of projectile + Momentum of powder gases
(Newton’s third law of action-reaction)

9 Firing shock force (N), recoil energy (J), impulse (N·s)

Æ Proportional to powder & gases quantity, exhausting gases velocity,
muzzle velocity, projectile mass
Æ Inversely proportional to rifle mass

9 Felt recoil
Æ Related to peak pressure on the skin, which is caused by stopping the
recoiling rifle
Æ Items such as recoil pads, muzzle brakes and shock absorbers
3 LDC
are utilized
to reduce the amount of felt recoil.

2/18
 Introduction
□ Recoil Pad
9 Protect shooters from shock and vibration caused by firing.
9 Minimize recoil transmitted to shooters, which allows them
to operate longtime with comfort.
9 Help shooters to aim at the target and fire precisely.

3 LDC

3/18
 Research Background
□ Experimental Prototype of New Rifle
9 Shoulder-fired dual barrel weapon system which consists of
5.56 mm and 20 mm caliber barrels

9 However, firing a 20 mm ammunition produces high recoil.

Æ negative impact on the shooting performance

9 To reduce the total weight, recoil pad is used to reduce the

high recoil of the weapon so that the soldier can fire the 20 mm
ammunition precisely at the target without hesitation.

3 LDC

Mockup of New Rifle

4/18
 Objectives

□ Test and evaluation of the performance of recoil pads

9 Criterion : recoil-related firing shock force
9 Design variable : material property (hardness)

□ Development of experimental setup for recoil pads

9 How to measure firing shock force, transmitted through the
buttstock and recoil pad, while the rifle being fired on the
sliding gun mount
3 LDC

5/18
Shape of Recoil Pad to be Tested

3D ProE Model Recoil Pad

9 Designed and manufactured to be fit for the contour of shoulder

3 LDC area
on which the rifle is rested.

6/18
 Impulse-Recoil Measurement
□ TOP 3-2-826 (kinetic tests for small arms)
9 Measuring the impulse (I) and recoil energy (E) of small-
caliber weapon by means of ballistic pendulum

4 Supports – 6 Wires System

2π ( mrifle + mcradle ) d 0 Intrinsic recoil-related values of rifle

I= ( N ⋅ s) (irrespective of3recoil pad)
T LDC
2 : The performance of recoil pad can not
I 1
E= = mrifle vrifle
2
(J ) be evaluated by ballistic pendulum.
2mrifle 2

7/18
Experimental Setup with Recoil Pad

Connection Point
between Rifle and Mount Recoil Pad Test Fixture Gun Mount

Front Slider Rear Slider Force Transducer

9 The rifle moves horizontally on the sliding gun mount.

3 LDC

8/18
Experimental Setup with Recoil Pad
Recoil Pad

Force Transducer
Gun Mount

Central Axis of Buttstock and

Recoil Pad

Buttstock
3 LDC
Test Fixture

9/18
Experimental Setup without Recoil Pad
Connection Point
between Rifle and Mount Gun Mount

Front Slider Rear Slider Force Transducer

9 The rifle moves horizontally on the sliding gun mount.

3 LDC

10/18
Experimental Setup without Recoil Pad

Force Transducer
Gun Mount

Central Axis of Buttstock and

Recoil Pad

Buttstock
3 LDC

11/18
 Experimental Setup

Experimental Prototype on the Sliding Gun Mount

3 LDC

With Recoil Pad Without Recoil Pad

12/18
 Experimental Setup

Test Fixture Inner curved Outer curved

surface surface

9 Material of test fixture : Aluminium

9 The inner curved surface of test fixture was manufactured to be perfectly
matched with the outer curved surface of recoil pad by using NC machine
3 LDC
and 3D contour data from 3D ProE model of recoil pad.
Æ The pressure, exerted by the recoil force, is distributed evenly on the
whole contact surface.
13/18
Experimental Results without Recoil Pad
□ Measured Firing Shock Force
#1 #1
0.15 #2 1.00 #2
#3 #3
#4 #4
#5 #5
0.10 0.75

Normalized Force
Normalized Force

0.05 0.50

0.00 0.25

-0.05 0.00

-0.10 -0.25
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)

In case of 5.56 mm ammunition In case of 20 mm ammunition

(5 shots) (5 shots)
Peak firing shock force = 0.136Fref Peak firing shock force = 0.883Fref
3 LDC
9 Peak shock force of firing 20 mm ammunition is around 6.5 times higher
than that of firing 5.56 mm ammunition.

14/18
 Experimental Results with Recoil Pad
SR 18 SR 18
0.15 CR 24 1.00 CR 24
CR 30 CR 30
CR 50 CR 50
CR 80 CR 80
0.10 Without Recoil Pad 0.75 Without Recoil Pad
Normalized Force

Normalized Force
0.05 0.50

0.00 0.25

-0.05 0.00

-0.10 -0.25
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Time (sec.) Time (sec.)

In case of 5.56 mm ammunition In case of 20 mm ammunition

Peak Firing Shock Force ( x Fref )
Material SR CR CR CR CR Without
(Hardness) (Hardness 18) (Hardness 24) (Hardness 30) (Hardness 50) (Hardness 80) Recoil Pad
5.56 mm 0.068 0.081 0.090 0.101 0.121 0.136
3 LDC
20 mm 0.588 0.645 0.689 0.715 0.778 0.883
* SR : Silicone Rubber, CR : Polychloroprene
15/18
Experimental Results with Recoil Pad

□ Motion of Recoil Pad by High Speed Camera

In case of 5.56 mm ammunition In case of 20 mm ammunition

3 LDC

16/18
 Summary

□ Effect of the Hardness of Recoil Pad

9 The performance of reducing firing shock force was increased
as the hardness of the recoil pad was lowered.
9 In case of SR(hardness 18), the peak firing shock force was
reduced by 50% in case of 5.56 mm ammunition and 33%
in case of 20 mm ammunition, respectively.

□ Experimental Setup to Evaluate the Performance of Recoil

Pads
9 It can be referred for the test and evaluation of recoil pads
which will be attached to shoulder-fired weapon systems
with high recoil, developed in the future. 3 LDC

17/18
 End of Presentation

Thank you very much!

Contact Information
Name : Joon-Ho Lee
Phone Number : +82-42-821-2769
Company : 5th R&D Institute-3, Agency for Defense Development, Korea
3 LDC
E-mail : justinlee@add.re.kr, justinlee@kaist.ac.kr

18/18
U.S. SMALL CALIBER AMMUNITION
Second Source Small Cal Program

NDIA Small Arms Systems Symposium

21 May 2008

1
 GD-OTS SECOND SOURCE TEAM - STATUS

• The General Dynamics – Ordnance & Tactical Systems Small

Caliber Ammunition (SCA) Team is augmenting the U.S.
Government organic base to meet the small caliber
ammunition needs for the GWOT.

• The SCA Team is currently executing a multiple year ID/IQ

program to deliver in excess of 1B rounds of ammunition.

• Multiple Manufacturing facilities around the world have been

qualified to produce small caliber ammunition to U.S.
Government specifications.

• A world-wide logistics and shipping organization has been

implemented to support CONUS and OCONUS supplies.

• About 400M rounds delivered through to date.

2
 SCA SECOND SOURCE TEAM PRODUCTS

Combat and Training Ammunition

-Ball Clip

-Armor Piercing
Incendiary
5.56mm
-Armor Piercing 7.62mm
Incendiary with
Trace .50 Caliber

-Ball/Trace Linked

-Blank

3
 SECOND SOURCE LESSONS LEARNED
• A Second Source is a viable strategy for the ammunition base, now and for
the future
Provides critical surge capability
Eliminates single point failure associated with LCAAP
Provides needed contingencies to avoid catastrophic supply interruptions
• Existing capabilities and capacities need to be expanded
Complex logistics challenges associated with moving energetic materials.
Select foreign sources carefully to meet demand.
International politics, business and regulations complicate business.
• Tracer capability in all small calibers needs to be expanded.
Current Second Source supply is International based.
• Government contracts now must reflect the realities of the marketplace –
proper commodity price indexes essential in long term, fixed price contracts
Suppliers in this dynamic market can no longer afford to assume
commodity risks – 400% growth in last 3 years.

4
 RESPONSE TO INCREASED NEEDS
• The Second Source supply base has invested into capacity and
capability expansion to meet USG demand.
− 300-500 million round capacity available to support surge
requirements.
• Global marketplace includes the USG demand, Foreign Government
Demands and the commercial market.
− Access to capacity is not only driven by obligations to meet GWOT
demands, but also Commercial market requirements.
− Commodities (copper, zinc, lead, fuel, others) are in extreme high
demand, driving higher material costs due to supply and demand
requirements.
− SCA Suppliers management of business portfolios allocate
capacities based on ability to pass through commodity prices –
sometimes limits abilities to meet certain volume/product mix
demands.

5
 CHALLENGES & OPPORTUNITIES
• Challenges
− Proper EPA clauses for commodities that offset record setting
growths in USG contracts
− Adding qualified domestic and international suppliers to increase
capacities to meet annual USG volume requirements which
compete with commercial demands
− Managing Global shipping requirements with use of US Flag
Vessels
• Opportunities
− Forecasted on-going Second Source requirements allows for the
possibility to expand capabilities and capacities
− Overcoming the challenges of compliance with USG Specifications
enables our international suppliers to modernize operations and
improve production capabilities to meet our volume demands

6
Armament Division

Small Arms System

2008
Symposium

Small Caliber Ammunition

Industry Capability Evolution
And
Readiness

Panel Discussion

21 May 2008
1_
Panel Topic Theme

• Small Caliber Ammunition Industrial Base Overview

• Status 2008
• “Lesson Learned”
• Significant Demonstrated Response to Needs
• Vision For Future—Ensuring Readiness
• Technology Evolution– Achieving Insertion
• Challenges Re:
1. Maintaining Industrial Base Readiness
2. Selective Introduction of Technology etc.
• Risk Management

• A Discussion of the Small Caliber Ammunition

Industrial Base – Past--Today--Future
2_
Panel Objectives

• Overview Status of Small Caliber Ammunition Industrial Base

• Address Response to Increased Capability Needs Since 2001

• Impact on Future

• Address Small Caliber Ammunition Industrial Base Capability

Vision
• Current Technology and Products
• Introduction of Evolving Products

• Outline Challenges for Technology Base and Production Base

• Define, Risks Path Forward Visions, Opportunities

3_
Panel Format and Process

• Panel Opening Comments/Format Description Moderator

• Panel Member Remarks Each Member

• Panel Dialogue—Lead by Moderator All

• Questions from Attendees Panel Members

– Written Questions
– Open Format Questions (As Time Permits)

• Concluding Summary Comments Panel Members

• Wrap-Up Summary Moderator

4_
Panel Members

Name Position Organization

• Dave Broden (Moderator)

• Keith Enlow ATK—Lake City

• Steve Torma GD-OTS

• Bruce Webb Nammo USA

• Alan Serven Remington

• Dave Council Olin

5_
Panel Members

Name Position Organization

• Pierre Lemay GD-OTS Canada

• Paul Shipley Textron-AAI

• Nick Malkovich Mac Ammo

• Sy Wiley Polytech

6_
Topic Categories

• Small Caliber Industrial Base Status –2008

• Small Caliber Industrial Base Response to Need Since 2001

• Key “Lessons Learned” and Impact on Future

• Vision for Industrial Base Future

• Capability Level Base etc.

• Concerns Regarding Future

• Barriers to Future Responsiveness and Readiness

• Impact of Technology —Configuration Change on Industrial

Base Readiness
7_
Topic Categories

• Tech Base and Related New Technology Funding Addressing

User Challenges/Needs vs. Compatibility with Production
Resources

• Component Supply Chain Readiness

• Commodity/Material Supply Chain Readiness

• Sources
• Availability
• Cost—Commodity Price Increases/Fluctuations
• Lead Times

• Critical Items, Barriers etc. To Achieving and Maintaining

Desired Readiness

8_
Topic Categories

• “Lessons Learned” –Technology, Configuration, and Process

Needs to Ensure Meeting Warfighter Needs
– What are the key improvement needs of current products or
production? Addressed Yes/No?

• “Green Ammunition” Maturity and Production Integration Status

• Are Production TDP Improvement and Industrial Base

Readiness Considerations Effectively Addressed by Tech Base
etc.?

• Component and Commodity Readiness and Availability

9_
Technology and Configuration Change Insertion

• Objective: Provide the Warfighter Small Caliber Ammunition

Advanced Technology and Configurations which offer:
– Operational Superiority
– Address Specific Needs
– Production Quality, Reliability, and Affordability
– Logistically Supportable

• Challenges:
– Technology/Configurations Proven Ready for Production
- Performance
- Producibility
- Affordability
– Industrial Base Planning Addressing Changes
- Facility Flexibility and Adaptability
10_
Topic Categories

• New Small Caliber Technologies

• New Small Caliber Configurations

• Considerations Impacting Introduction of Product Changes

• Type of Technology
• Facility/Tooling Limitations and/or Costs
• User Acceptance
• Risks

• “Green” Ammunition Considerations and Impact

• Related Facility Modernization

• Current vs. New Technology/Cartridges etc.

• Large Primary vs. Small/Specialized Sources

11_
Panel Topics and Questions

• 1. Panel Member Overview of Company Capability and Role In

Small Caliber Industrial Base.

• 2. Impact of Need Response 2001-2008 and Future on the

Company

• 3. What are the Key Benefits Realized by the Industrial Base?

• 4. What are the Challenges Ahead in Current Small Caliber

Ammunition?

• 5. Impact of Potential Production Adjustments?

• 6. Concerns for Future?

12_
Panel Topics and Questions

• 7. What are the New Technologies Evolving?

• When Available for Production Introduction?

• 8. What are the New Configurations Evolving?

• When are will New Configuration be Considered?

• 9. Barriers to Introduction of New Technology or Configuration?

• Technology
• Existing Tooling/Facility Limitations
• Costs
• User Factors

• 10 What Path can Enable New Capabilities?

13_
Panel Topics and Questions

• 11. Impact of “Green Ammunition” Initiatives

• 12. Plant/Facility Modernization Considerations

• 13. Number of Sources

• 14. Role of Small Quantity/Specialized Sources

• 15. Tech Base Funded Technology/New Responding to User

Challenges vs. Production Introduction/Compatibility

• 16. Supply Chain

• Component Supply
• Material Supply
14_
Symposium Attendee Questions

• Written Questions Prepared During Panel Member Remarks

• Moderator will Select and Ask Questions

• Open Format Questions From Attendees

• Following Written Questions

15_
Wrap-Up Comments

• Panel Members Present Wrap-Up Remarks

- Identify Top 2-3 Focus Priorities

• Focus on Key Topics

- Status Today
- Evolving Technology Integration
- Challenges
- Barriers
- Opportunities
- Maintaining Readiness and Evolving Change

• DOD and Service Objectives, Focus, and Plans—Challenge and

Opportunity for Industry

• Industry Focus Thrusts to Enable Current and Future Small

Caliber Ammunition Industrial Base Readiness

16_
Wrap-Up Comments

• Observations:
– Government and Industry Partnership Has Responded
Effectively Establish Industrial Base Capacity and Readiness

– Vision Forward Must Address “Lesson Learned” to Ensure

Responsiveness and Readiness

– Manufacturing Capability and Resource Modernization must

be Central Focus

– Integration of New Advanced Technologies and Configurations

must be Factor in Industrial Base Vision Planning

• Continued Integration of the User, Developer, and Industrial

Base Government and Industry Team is Essential to Enable and
Ensure Small Caliber Ammunition Readiness
17_
Closing Remarks---Technology/Integration/Application

• Moderator Summary Comments

• Thank Panel Members for Participation and Candid Comments

• Panel Members will be Available for Discussion

• Panel Has Effectively Described Status of Small Caliber

Ammunition Technology and Production Readiness—Indentified
the Needs—Challenges and Opportunities

• Partnership of DOD and Industry is Key to Evolving the

Capability

• NDIA Offers a Forum for Exchange of Information and

Networking to Enable Technology Capability and Readiness
Evolution
18_
 Polymer Cased Ammunition

Lessons Learned in the Evolution of Design

Material Selection
Based on a Complex Design of Experiment
Applying all the Rules of Injection Molding

Mold it to Fit The Build it and Bust it! Establish Repeatability

Specification 3rd Party Product Design Verification
 Polymer Cased Ammunition
Polymer Cased Ammunition Production is not as Capital Intensive as Brass Ammunition

Production Process

Injection Mold Injection Mold Position Parts

Base of Case Neck/Shoulder of Case

Welding Stage
Joins
Neck/Shoulder of Case
Base of the Case

LAP Ammunition

Prime, Stake & Lacquer Varnish Load

Packaging

Stock for Shipment

Before reaching the Prime & Stake Stage, Brass takes Significantly
More Steps Dependent on the Cartridge
 Polymer Cased Ammunition
The "Lessons Learned" over many years of
development and the application of key Materials
technology has focused this effort . The analysis
process (both in house and from partner
companies), the evolution of materials technology,
and the establishment of process controls has
resulted in the achievement of desired
performance. At this time a Confirmation of the
Design, the Process, and Operational Repeatability
is being established.

Polymer Cased Ammunition has now evolved to a point of

readiness for qualification and transition to production