Gripen287

Hello all,
 
Gripen here. Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I'm drinking Founder's Breakfast Stout and come bearing documents about railguns (is there a preferred method of posting/uploading documents?):
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZeNQNqLwoOxyGORELf7H80qI0ENFJ5M
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fdHpxVGdvaFdpR28
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QUAUdaP_QGBmA9DTby6pWYINon8XZFn_
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fWHJRdHZIdGlRWDQ
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fQjVyYkpWaG1CRkk
 
And for the inductively minded:
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fZDM3SHM3SWE5N2M
 
Did I do it right? 

Do you like pontificating on the infantryman's load? Want to see how different gear choices affect said load?  If so, check out this spreadsheet including an itemized list of "best of breed" (IMHO) gear! Download it and customize to suit your own preferred equipment.  The "Configured Totals" section should auto-calculate weights and ammunition totals for your selected items, and you can copy and paste "Configured Totals" values into the light and heavy load sections for comparison. 
 
I've tried to provide a fairly comprehensive list of gear for the rifle squad and machine gun teams.  A few items are notional, and those should be noted as such. I've also tried to balance both lightness and capability.  I, however, mostly intend this spreadsheet to serve as an outline and handy way to calculate total values for any items you choose to add or change.
 
While I'm sure there are a more than a few errors, this spreadsheet is merely intended as a starting point for your own explorations, and I am NOT likely to maintain this particular version. Enjoy!
 
Infantry Packlist Spreadsheet

No it doesn’t. No F-35 model has any CAT 1A deficiencies at present. Are you surprised to learn that POGO and the media either don’t bother to differentiate CAT 1A from 1B deficiencies (the program office’s metrics) or use the Air Force’s definition of CAT 1 that is a lot broader and includes less serious deficiencies than those that represent a serious risk to the aircraft? 
 
Are you purposefully trying to conduct an impossible analysis to justify your preconceived notion that the F-35 is crap? Can you go back in time and apply today’s level of oversight and risk averseness to legacy programs?
 
I’ve already given you more of my time than you appear to deserve. You don’t seem to have realistic expectations or a realistic frame of reference. So rather than submit a few hundred FOIA request hoping to get that nugget of releasable info that will surely, surely change your mind, I’m going to enjoy the rest of my day. 

 
 

Some naval aviation and arresting gear resources.
 
REVIEW OF THE CARRIER APPROACH CRITERIA FOR CARRIER-BASED AIRCRAFT PHASE I
 
Carrier Suitability of Land-Based Aircraft
 
The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter
 
CVN FLIGHT/HANGAR DECK NATOPS MANUAL
 
Arresting Gear:
 
Metallurgical Analysis of Arresting Gear Deck Pendant Failures
 
Development of [Arresting Gear] Cable Materials
 
Modern Sandvik 11R51 Alloy Datasheet
 
Analytical Study of Aircraft Arresting Gear Cable Design
 
Mark 7 Arresting Gear Training Manual
 
Useful Figures:
 

 


 

 

Apologies in advance for the length of this post, but I decided to throw this together and I hope everyone finds it interesting/informative. If I have made any mistakes please feel free to point them out and I will be happy to correct them.

At any rate, the issues with APA's Zero One Comparison Table or "ZOCT" are severe and numerous. Here are some of the more egregious ones based on open source information:
 
The Air Power Australia "ZOCT" is wrong about the F35’s radar.
 
- Greater radar aperture is advantageous if all else is equal, but it is not in this case. For example,  the ZOCT does not differentiate between the PESA technology in the Irbis-E on the Su-35 and the AESA technology used in the F35’s APG-81. The table does not adequately account for T/R module or LPI/LPD performance, electronic attack or passive detection functionality, radar sub-modes, ECCM and so on. The ZOCT fundamentally ignores the comparative technological sophistication of each radar, with no analysis of their actual capabilities.

- The ZOCT also incorrectly portrays the APG-81 as having the least capable, “medium power aperture". Generally speaking, a larger radar array on an AESA allows for a greater number of track/receive (T/R) modules, which enhances the radar’s detection capability. The ZOCT table is likely linked to APA’s false claim that the APG-81 only has ~1200 T/R modules.

- In reality, the APG-81 has over 1600 T/R modules, which is higher than their (also incorrect) figure of 1500 for the F22’s APG-77. Note that they classify the APG-77 as a “high power aperture” at only 1500 modules, so - using APA's own reasoning - the APG-81 would qualify as a "high power aperture" as well.

- It is also worth noting that the updated T/R modules fitted to the Raptor’s radar in the APG-77(v)1 upgrade were GaA T/R modules derived from the F-35’s own APG-81 (and not the other way around). Objectively speaking, both radars are world leading in their own right and are generally regarded as offering similar performance overall. You can get a reasonable sense of their dimensional similarity below:
             

 
The relevance of side-looking AESA arrays is debatable for a jet with AN/AAQ-37, AN/ASQ-239 and MADL

Much like thrust vectoring, the importance of side-looking AESA arrays to the F35 is debatable, and AFAIK (contrary to how the ZOCT portrays the issue), there are currently no solid plans to install them in any of the aircraft in the table aside from the Su57. It should be noted that, due to size and space constraints, these “cheek” arrays potentially force the main radar array further forward into the nose-cone, limiting the volume it can occupy.

When dealing with LO opponents, it may well be more effective to retain a single larger and more powerful forward-facing array (to maximise detection range vs low RCS targets) while using 360 degree passive sensors and/or offboard donors (via datalink) to deal with contacts outside of the radar’s field of view. The presence or absence of side-facing radar arrays is arguably more a matter of CONOPS than an outright advantage in every case.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about supersonic weapons delivery

“Supersonic launch of internal weapons, including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air to air missiles, is a feature of all F35s”.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s future engine growth

The potential for growth in the F35’s powerplant is far from limited. As a matter of fact, research into variable bypass engine technology has made the F35 a prime candidate for early implementation.

Pratt and Whitney have already proposed F135 Growth Options 1 and 2, with the latter introducing variable bypass technology that has the potential to decrease fuel burn by up to 20% and increase thrust by up to 15%. This would improve the jet's thrust to weight ratio from 1.07 at 50% fuel and a full weapons load to over 1.2. A completely new powerplant derived from technology found in the GE XA100 and/or PW XA101 variable bypass engines is another distinct possibility that is being actively explored. 
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s combat ceiling

It is not less than 45,000ft as the table claims, but greater than 50,000ft.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s RF stealth features

- The ZOCT’s description of the F35’s stealth features as “partial” is based on the disingenuous claim that its stealth shaping works best from the forward aspect, and is less effective in the beam and aft sectors. What APA neglects to acknowledge is that this is true for ALL the stealth aircraft in the table.

- In reality, both the F22 and F35 are all-aspect VLO designs, optimised to defeat the shorter wavelength fire control radars that are typically used to guide anti-aircraft missiles. Their actual radar cross-section values are of course extremely classified, but those few individuals that DO know what they are have long described them as being very comparable between the two aircraft.

- It is important to note that the ZOCT also completely neglects the vital importance of stealthy sensors and emissions control (EMCON) for stealth aircraft. Compared to the other aircraft in the table, the F35 has extremely sophisticated EMCON and passive sensing capabilities (LPI/LPD radar modes, MADL datalink, passive IR based MAWS, AN/ASQ-239, long range EOTS IRST) that are not adequately accounted for.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s non-RF stealth features

The F35’s non-RF stealth features are at least as sophisticated as those found on any of the other aircraft in the table and probably superior to most, if not all (with rough parity perhaps, to the F22). They include:

- The use of divertless supersonic inlets with serpentine inlet ducts to block the line of sight to the engine’s hot interior from the forward hemisphere.

- The use of fuselage air “scoops” to mix cooler outside air with the engine exhaust so as to rapidly cool it and in turn reduce the IR signature of the engine plume
 
- The use of onboard fuel as a coolant alongside IR suppressant coatings (p4) to reduce the IR signature of the airframe itself

- Recessed positioning of the nozzle so that the jet’s tailfins block a direct line of sight to it in all but the aft-most sector.
 
- The use of a serrated nozzle derived from the Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN) program to further reduce the signature of the engine and assist with mixing cool air with the exhaust plume (p4). Note that this fundamental design approach has been subsequently replicated in new nozzles proposed for the J20, J31, Su-57 and Su-75. 
 


 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal fuel.

The amount of fuel the F35 carries is irrelevant on its own. Being able to fly further for longer is certainly advantageous though. Hence, the relevant stat here is range, and the range of the F35 is comparable to that of the F22 that APA endorses. Again, this will only improve with planned enhancements to the F35’s powerplant.
 
The ZOCT is wrong about the F35’s internal hard point stations

New F35s will have 6 internal hard points with the Sidekick weapons bay modification, not 4 as the ZOCT claims.
 
The ZOCT over-emphasises arbitrary aerodynamic features 

It is true, for example, that the F35 does not feature super cruise or thrust vectoring, but neither feature is a requirement for its specified mission set. The general consensus is that the F35’s aerodynamic characteristics combine the excellent low speed controllability of the Hornet, with the excellent subsonic acceleration of the F16. Unlike either of those aircraft, however, the F35’s ability to carry all of its weapons, EW gear and sensors internally means that it maintains its aerodynamic performance at full combat loads. Current indications are that this kinematic profile is extremely capable.
 
Due to its flawed binary design, the ZOCT gives equal weighting to features that are not "equal".

Compare, for example, TVC to VLO. APA have long claimed that non-TVC teen series fighters like F16 and F/A18 variants (along with the F35) ought to be an easy meal for a late-model TVC equipped Flanker, especially in the low speed BFM domain where TVC should be most useful. After years of DACT conducted with Flankers of this type, though, the advantage provided by TVC may not be nearly as decisive as APA would have us believe: 

Legacy Hornet Beats TVC Su-30MKM 3-0 in BFM

In reality, BFM is a highly nuanced, complex artform that favours the pilot who is most effective at playing to the strengths of their own aircraft. TVC may be useful here, but it does not appear to be a panacea - pilot training, experience and skill seem to be the real differentiators. Now compare this to the well documented effect that VLO has on a tactical aircraft’s lethality and survivability and it becomes clear that the weightings allocated to each category in the ZOCT are deeply flawed:

""I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

“We took off out of Madison (to join the fight),” said Lt. Col. Bart Van Roo, 176th FS commander. “We went to our simulated air field out in the far part of the air space. As the two ship from the Northern half of the air space we turned hot, drove for about 30 seconds and we were dead, just like that. We never even saw the F-35A.”

"Everything they see becomes the F-35 out there. Every radar hit, every communication is about the stealth jet. They want to illuminate or eliminate a threat they can't handle. It has nothing to do with their skill or technology. They're at such a technological disadvantage. I've seen guys in F-18s turn directly in front of me and show me their tails cause they have no idea I'm there. It aggregates to a completely inept response to what we're doing in the air. People are so hellbent on shooting down the stealth fighter that they invariably make mistakes that I can exploit."  Retired US Marine Corps Maj. Dan Flatley
 
The ZOCT is missing important data

APA have also omitted a plethora of features that are just as (if not more) important than many of those listed in the ZOCT. For example

- Multi-spectral sensors - this refers to having RF sensors PLUS infra-red, EO and laser range finding. This is a feature that the F35 has and the F22, for example, does not.

- Spherical FLIR and missile cueing - AN/AAQ-37 provides the F35 with a permanent passive missile lock on every aircraft around it within visual range (and possibly further). This means the F35 can fire on an enemy aircraft regardless of where the F35’s nose is pointed or where the bandit is coming from - even if it is behind the F35. No other aircraft in the table (aside, possibly, for the J20 with its DAS clone) has an equivalent system.

- Sensor fusion - this refers to the capacity of the aircraft’s onboard computers to collect, assimilate, analyse and present data from the aircraft’s sensors to the pilot in a way that streamlines their workload and enhances their decision making. This data can also be shared via;

- An LPI, jam resistant, high throughput datalink - (eg. MADL on the F35 or the older IFDL on the F22) which, when combined with sensor fusion, allows for;

- Cooperative Engagement - the high quality of the F35’s sensor fused targeting data combined with the capacity of the MADL datalink allows it to share targeting information with other platforms (eg. Aegis vessels, Army/USMC MLRS units or other F35s) and subsequently use it to fire on desired targets without relying on their own onboard sensors.

- Cooperative EW - eg. cooperative jamming where members of a flight of aircraft can alternate/coordinate jamming emissions to enhance jamming effects and prevent hostile assets from pinpointing the source of the jamming.

- RF threat triangulation and geo-location (p6) - eg. networking the passive ESM equipment on multiple members of a flight of aircraft to passively triangulate and geolocate threat emitters like SAM sites, ISR assets and fighter aircraft.

- Cooperative IRST - eg. using a passive FLIR like EOTS cooperatively in conjunction with MADL provides another method of triangulating the location and range of hostile assets/aircraft without emitting any RF signals.
 
Suffice it to say that the F35’s unique combination of features is extremely potent:
 
 

So in your clearly learned opinion how would you rate the F-14? Yeah, you might say sticking TF30s in the A-model birds was a "small problem."  Only something like 375 or so TF30 A models made into the sky to try and kill their crews for staring at the throttle the wrong way. 
 
Every single Super Bug that will likely ever fly has gigantic, toed-out pylons because of unanticipated store separation issues. 
 
It's not even clear if your criticism is with issues due to specific engineering decisions that are liable to occur in any new aircraft program, let alone three as with the F35s, or with the general configuration of the aircraft. To the latter possibility, why is it even useful to compare the F-35 to the F-22, Su-57, or J-20? They all have very different design criteria, different missions, and fight in different organizations. I bet you're fun discussing WWII armor too. 
 
And like, dude, Kopp was trying get F-22s for Australia. Have you noticed that APA stopped trying to stir shit up after F-22 production ended in 2012? 
 
 
 
 
 
 

So in your clearly learned opinion how would you rate the F-14? Yeah, you might say sticking TF30s in the A-model birds was a "small problem."  Only something like 375 or so TF30 A models made into the sky to try and kill their crews for staring at the throttle the wrong way. 
 
Every single Super Bug that will likely ever fly has gigantic, toed-out pylons because of unanticipated store separation issues. 
 
It's not even clear if your criticism is with issues due to specific engineering decisions that are liable to occur in any new aircraft program, let alone three as with the F35s, or with the general configuration of the aircraft. To the latter possibility, why is it even useful to compare the F-35 to the F-22, Su-57, or J-20? They all have very different design criteria, different missions, and fight in different organizations. I bet you're fun discussing WWII armor too. 
 
And like, dude, Kopp was trying get F-22s for Australia. Have you noticed that APA stopped trying to stir shit up after F-22 production ended in 2012? 
 
 
 
 
 
 

So in your clearly learned opinion how would you rate the F-14? Yeah, you might say sticking TF30s in the A-model birds was a "small problem."  Only something like 375 or so TF30 A models made into the sky to try and kill their crews for staring at the throttle the wrong way. 
 
Every single Super Bug that will likely ever fly has gigantic, toed-out pylons because of unanticipated store separation issues. 
 
It's not even clear if your criticism is with issues due to specific engineering decisions that are liable to occur in any new aircraft program, let alone three as with the F35s, or with the general configuration of the aircraft. To the latter possibility, why is it even useful to compare the F-35 to the F-22, Su-57, or J-20? They all have very different design criteria, different missions, and fight in different organizations. I bet you're fun discussing WWII armor too. 
 
And like, dude, Kopp was trying get F-22s for Australia. Have you noticed that APA stopped trying to stir shit up after F-22 production ended in 2012? 
 
 
 
 
 
 

What do you expect? What value, even if only entertainment value, do you think you've added? All you've done is trot out "arguments" from nearly a decade ago, or more, and slapped some CYA language over them lest someone hold you to the implications of advocating for those positions. Are you even aware of the rebuttals to the Kopp/Sprey drivel? I suggest you take a week or two to catch up on the Chip Burke debates/testimonials and the wealth of information and context here before getting back to us with a comparative analysis informed by a modicum of understanding of the compromises inherent in fighter aircraft design and the trajectory of air combat. 
 
 
Try googling "F-16 GAO."
 
Try googling "F-15 GAO."
 
Try googling "F-18 GAO."
 
FYI, POGO was only established in 1981.
 
As OSC said, I think you'll be shocked to find that agencies tasked with finding problems to justify their existence end up finding them.
 
Oh, and don't forget to role in all the problems with legacy, podded sensors and systems that are integral to the F-35.
 
Have fun! 

10 years to get this baby ready! 
 

Friends, rejoice!
 
After a long stint at the Dakota Union reeducation camp I have returned. There the evil blackguards who preach the word of small, weak bullets tried to convert me to their blasphemy. But I was too cunning for them - I learned their ways and have returned to turn their secret fires against them!
 
Here is my creation, the shining spawn of my mind. Behold, the 7x48mm FGM2!


Although still a bit petite for those amongst us who still follow the true creed of big, girthy, manly-man bullets, it shall serve as a dagger thrust into the heart of the snake that is the second joint committee for cartridge development. For it meets, nay exceeds the requirements of their grotesque mockery of a competition. Now, truly, the scales will fall from the eyes of the people as they are forced to test it and admit its might!
 
And here is the proof:



 
And even at lower velocities, it still almost very nearly juuuuuuuust doesn't make the requirements:


 
And the news only gets better from here! The recoil is low enough even for the atrophied shoulders of the testing committee (10.49 ft-lb). The penetration into pine boards easily exceeds requirements even at the lower velocities (26 pine boards at 600y at the lower test velocity, 29 at the higher velocity). And the cost is fantastically cheap (5.63c) thanks to the use of an annealed, copper-washed mild steel mono-bullet and a lacquered steel case. Truly this is an expedient cartridge that every soldier can take into battle aplenty, to distribute to his foes liberally. And best of all, the use of a long, finely-profiled bullet (OOC note: dimensions taken from here and properly adjusted this time) means that there is plenty of volume for specialty loads (incendiary, armour piercing and so on) that can be ballistically matched to the standard round.
 
My friends, it truly feels good to be able to say this: our great Dakota Union now has a cartridge fit for a man.
 
Edit (OOC note): so I'm a dumb-dumb in more ways than one, and needed a lot of background assistance from @Sturgeon to put together something that actually made requirements (kinda, sorta, almost). So a big thanks to him for taking the time to answer all my questions and provide feedback.

A little info about URZ with some drawings and photos. It's in Czech but maybe you can get something out of it. The weapon was never intended for domestic use. All the development was done with some export intentions because there was no requirement for such weapon from our army at that time. Hence why it was designed for NATO ammunition. I think the prototype was in Prague Žižkov muzeum but that is closed now due to a reconstruction. 
http://www.vhu.cz/utocna-puska-urz-univerzalni-rucni-zbran/
https://www.valka.cz/CZK-URZ-t38624
 

It's actually being developed by a Québécois company, but close enough. That's the Mawashi Uprise exoskeleton. 
 
It was also discussed here at 3:42:30. I want me some "Ranger legs"! The whole episode is great.

I don't think it matters. When I design an EPR, I usually try to balance the masses of the two parts at least roughly, but to save time a lot of what I do is iterative based on older works. So some of the relationships are copied over several times from decisions made by me 2-3 years ago.

Hello all,
 
Gripen here. Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I'm drinking Founder's Breakfast Stout and come bearing documents about railguns (is there a preferred method of posting/uploading documents?):
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZeNQNqLwoOxyGORELf7H80qI0ENFJ5M
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fdHpxVGdvaFdpR28
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QUAUdaP_QGBmA9DTby6pWYINon8XZFn_
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fWHJRdHZIdGlRWDQ
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fQjVyYkpWaG1CRkk
 
And for the inductively minded:
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fZDM3SHM3SWE5N2M
 
Did I do it right? 

Which seems to be exactly what BAE is doing with their "Dispensing" charge. There's barely any room for explosives anyway  Things might get more interesting with larger bore rail and coil guns due to the scaling factors of the various components. This paper contemplates a 12" coilgun firing projectiles 155mm in diameter, excluding the fixed control fins. The guidance package volume fraction isn't nearly so bad. 

It doesn't even take a normal platoon to maneuver on 2-4 structures, doesn't need super platoon. Why is the platoon even assaulting something that can be easily destroyed by CAS or precision tube or rocket arty? If there are 
 
No, as a platoon leader I'd not want to have to ask for everything. But at the same time I don't want more assets than I need, let alone control. Its overkill. Very few missions need every platoon to have large numbers of CG and MG assets. When they do, almost never does every platoon need to be individually plus'd up, that's not how operations work, where often one platoon is the main effort, others are supporting efforts. Task allocating weapons at the company level, like how the Marine Corps does with a Weapons Platoon, or how the Army does with Mortars and snipers, allowing the company commander to dictate where they go based on his needs, is far cheaper and easier to control than trying to build those same assets into every platoon.
 
And at the end of the day, every single extra infantryman has to come from somewhere. Meaning either Congress approves a larger force structure, or else those bodies are removed from some place else they are currently. That was the problem the Marine Corps had. They didn't want to shrink their fire teams, but it was either go to three man, or else lose a fire team and thus the SL loses a maneuver element, or don't get the drone operator (which they want and know will be a major force multiplier). So for your 60 man platoon, where do they come from?  

In this scenario, is there any meaningful difference between a 12/13-man USMC squad with one SAW-equipped fire team and a 9-man Army squad with an attached 3-man MG team? The only one I can think of is that the USMC platoon commander knows that that the de facto MG teams are “his” and not toys that the company commander is passing around.
 
IMHO, instituting a more flexible platoon organization and arms room concept would address these deficiencies way better than merely throwing gear at the squads. If I were SecDef Mattis for a day, I'd change the TO&Es such that the infantry platoons, Army and USMC, include at least a couple 5-man MG teams and at least a couple 5-man CG/Mortar teams. I like 5-man building blocks because they make it easier to go all Generation Kill and have each squad roll around the AO in a couple of humvees or together in a single 10 + 2 APC. My notional 60-man infantry platoon that might look something like this:
 
(3) x 10-man Infantry squads including:
(1) x squad leader (1) x assistant squad leader (4) x riflemen (2) x grenadiers (2) x assault gunners  
(2) x 5-man MG Teams including:
(1) x team leader (1) x machine gunner (1) x assistant gunner (1) x ammo bearer (1) x marksman/spotter  
(2) x 5-man CG/Mortar Teams including:
(1) x team leader (1) x CG/Mortar gunner (1) x assistant gunner (1) x ammo bearer (1) x marksman/spotter  
(1) x 10-man Platoon Command Section
(1) x platoon commander (1) x platoon sergeant (2) x RTOs (2) x drone operators (2) x medics (2) x runners/drivers I’d give the platoon commanders and/or squad leaders a good bit of flexibility to decide how they want to organize their squads at the fireteam level. In close terrain (e.g., urban environments), they could organize each squad into two balanced 5-man fireteams with the squad leader leading one fireteam and the assistant leading the other fireteam (team leaders might be designated on an ad-hoc basis or based on experience). In more open terrain (e.g., Afghanistan), they could organize into a 5-man fireteam including both assault gunners and another 5-man fireteam including both grenadiers. The “arms room” concept would be desirable because the assault gunners and grenadiers could be equipped differently in each scenario. In the balanced fireteam scenario, each assault gunner could carry something like a Knight’s LAMG or M27 IAR and each grenadier could carry M320s on their hips. In open terrain, the assault gunners could draw a GPMG from the armory, with one assault gunner acting as the assistant gunner, and the grenadiers could similarly draw a CG or 60mm mortar from the armory. I figure the GPMG would probably be used as an LMG on a bipod and the 60mm as a “commando" mortar.
 
On top of flexibility at the fireteam level, the platoon commander would also know that he can count on having at least a couple of MG teams and a couple CG teams to play with. Like the grenadiers, I’d give the CG teams the option of drawing CGs or 60mm mortars from the armory but employing the 60s off the tripods were possible. I'd put a couple of gunnery sergeants at company level to oversee training of the MG and CG/Mortar teams, essentially acting as respective MG and CG/Mortar platoon leaders on training evolutions.

Thank you, Sturgeon, for your wonderful TFB article today. 
 
Like you, I've come to view light infantry as a primarily weight-constrained force. In general, trading firepower for lighter weight is advantageous with respect to the currently over-burdened U.S. infantryman. As you acknowledge in the article, generating suppressive fires via DMR rather than LMG is a weight-efficient means of achieving a suppressive effect in many of circumstances. I, however, do not believe that a belt-fed weapon is necessarily a dead end in the AR/DM role within the squad. There is at least one belt-fed weapon that can achieve very good accuracy: the HK21.
 
The HK21, of course, achieves this by having much more in common with a battle rifle than a traditional LMG or GPMG, namely the closed bolt operating system, hammer, and fixed, top-mounted scope mount of the G3 from which it is derived. While the roller-delayed operating system may itself be a dead end, the HK21 provides a template that could inform future designs in that a belt-fed weapon can retain many of the advantages a traditional magazine-fed weapon if the magazine well is merely replaced by a belt-feed mechanism. The downside is that reloading the HK21 is arguably even slower and more cumbersome than a traditional LMG/GPMG. In the tear-down portion of that video, Mr. Vickers notes that one work around is use a starter tab. I, for one, would not want to be fumbling around trying to find the starter tab when my fine motor skills go out the window as rounds are impacting around me, so reloading without ANY belt handling is desirable. While H&K tried to develop a linkless feed system for the HK21, it didn't go anywhere. I'm dubious that a linkless feed system could be made light enough and sufficiently reliable for infantry use.
 
If one goal of a future M249 replacement is that it share ammo with squads ARs, I agree that something along the lines of the M27 makes a lot of sense. I also believe that a GPC is a dead end, and that a two-caliber system for the infantry is probably the way to go. Ideally, my proposal is that the military replace 5.56x45mm with a cartridge optimized for a vld-epr bullet in the 50-77 grain range (i.e., an optimized SCHV round) and replace 7.62x51mm with a cartridge optimized for a vld-epr bullet in the 90-120 grain range, all concepts that I believe Sturgeon, among others, has touched on over the years. Ideally a composite case having a traditional extractor groove would be used. To summarize Sturgeon's work, the 7.62 replacement is, in essence, a composite-cased .264 USA (or possibly closer to 6.5mm Creedmoor) firing a 6.5mm vld-epr bullet. Let's call it a medium caliber, high velocity (MCHV) round. While I do not advocate equipping all members of the squad with a MCHV weapon, I do believe that having one or two MCHV DMRs within the squad would be desirable and that replacing the M249s with these makes the most sense.
 
From a logistics point of view, it would be desirable to distribute all SCHV rounds in magazines and all MCHV rounds in belts, other than perhaps accurized MCHV loadings. For this reason, I think it would be worthwhile to investigate a conceptual successor to the HK21 as a SAW/DMR. One change that I advocate is moving to a gas-operated system with a fixed barrel, preferably a LW-profile barrel with a carbon fiber overwrap to increase rigidity,  surface area, and thermal conductivity. The SCAR 17 with a  lengthened upper receiver to accommodate a constant-recoil system might be a good starting point. The grunts would primarily use the weapon in semi-auto, but a limited full-auto capability would be available for engaging maneuvering infantry at a distance and in close ambushes. Reloading would still be an issue. This is where we borrow from the best SAW that never was, the XM248. 
 
The XM248, among its many innovations, used a cam-driven sprocket to advance the belt. While WeaponsMan unfortunately passed away recently, his great discussion of the feed mechanism lives on. While the XM248 promised belt-handling-free reloading, the ammo boxes did have potentially fragile exposed "plastic grippers" that held the first round in the feed position. Additionally, there is the potential for misalignment of the belt and feed sprocket during reloading. While, I don't consider these to be deal breakers, we might do better in terms of reliability by integrating the feed sprocket with the ammo box. The ammo box would hold a round in the feed position via an anti-backup pawl, as in the XM248 design. While carrying around a feed sprocket in each "magazine" would add weight, I doubt there would be any penalty in terms of weight or bulk versus drum magazines, and it would enable truly care-free reloading. I imagine they'd actually be significantly less bulky than drum magazines and no heavier, if not slightly lighter, if a plastic belt is used. I propose 60-75 round drums as being standard. A backup, loose-belt adapter could be carried and inserted into the "magwell" if only loose belts for the GPMGs were available. The cam assembly, however, does prevent the use of a traditional hammer and trigger mechanism. We might get around this by using a linear hammer, as in the QBZ-97, or use the slightly more complicated cam system of the HK21. 
 
What do y'all think?

Sturgeon's SAW post on TFB got me thinking about the XM248 and an idea of mine. Here are a few relevant XM248 documents and links. Somebody needs to find one and give Ian a call.
 
Ford Aerospace XM248 Technical Manual
 
XM235 '461 Patent
 
XM235 '074 Patent
 
Weaponsman Links:
 
XM235: http://weaponsman.com/?p=11494
 
XM248 - Part 1: http://weaponsman.com/?p=11558
 
XM248 - Part 2: http://weaponsman.com/?p=11661

Hello all,
 
Gripen here. Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I'm drinking Founder's Breakfast Stout and come bearing documents about railguns (is there a preferred method of posting/uploading documents?):
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZeNQNqLwoOxyGORELf7H80qI0ENFJ5M
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fdHpxVGdvaFdpR28
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QUAUdaP_QGBmA9DTby6pWYINon8XZFn_
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fWHJRdHZIdGlRWDQ
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fQjVyYkpWaG1CRkk
 
And for the inductively minded:
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fZDM3SHM3SWE5N2M
 
Did I do it right? 

Ah ha a second 248 fan!

Hello all,
 
Gripen here. Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I'm drinking Founder's Breakfast Stout and come bearing documents about railguns (is there a preferred method of posting/uploading documents?):
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZeNQNqLwoOxyGORELf7H80qI0ENFJ5M
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fdHpxVGdvaFdpR28
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QUAUdaP_QGBmA9DTby6pWYINon8XZFn_
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fWHJRdHZIdGlRWDQ
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fQjVyYkpWaG1CRkk
 
And for the inductively minded:
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fZDM3SHM3SWE5N2M
 
Did I do it right? 

Hello all,
 
Gripen here. Long-time reader, first-time poster here. I'm drinking Founder's Breakfast Stout and come bearing documents about railguns (is there a preferred method of posting/uploading documents?):
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bZeNQNqLwoOxyGORELf7H80qI0ENFJ5M
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fdHpxVGdvaFdpR28
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QUAUdaP_QGBmA9DTby6pWYINon8XZFn_
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fWHJRdHZIdGlRWDQ
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fQjVyYkpWaG1CRkk
 
And for the inductively minded:
 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B21XX6zvOt4fZDM3SHM3SWE5N2M
 
Did I do it right?