The NGSW Program: Section 8 for Army Procurement Brass

Published on May 20, 2024
Duration: 28:27

This analysis critically examines the US Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program, highlighting significant concerns regarding its justification, technical feasibility, and cost-effectiveness. The program's core premise of defeating advanced body armor is questioned due to a lack of real-world threat justification. The new 6.8x51mm cartridge, while designed for higher pressures, offers minimal ballistic advantage over existing 7.62x51mm NATO rounds in standard loads, and its high-pressure AP variant introduces significant reliability and logistical issues. The program's departure from NATO standardization, the exorbitant cost of the XM157 optic, and the reduced ammunition loadout for soldiers are also detailed as major drawbacks. The analysis suggests alternative approaches, like the 6.8 SPC, could have better bridged the gap between 5.56mm and 7.62mm without the program's current shortcomings.

Quick Summary

The US Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program faces significant criticism regarding its justification, cost, and reliability. The new 6.8x51mm cartridge, while high-pressure, offers minimal ballistic advantage over existing 7.62x51mm NATO rounds in standard loads and introduces risks of weapon failure. The program abandons NATO standardization, features an exorbitantly priced optic, and reduces soldiers' ammunition loadout, raising serious concerns about its effectiveness and sustainability.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction to NGSW Program Criticisms
  2. 00:40Ballistic Twin: 6.8x51mm vs. 7.62x51mm
  3. 01:05Unjustified Body Armor Penetration Requirement
  4. 01:31Abandoning NATO Standardization
  5. 02:07The 80,000 PSI AP Load and its Risks
  6. 02:32High Pressure Cartridge Failure Risks
  7. 02:54Three-Piece Cartridge Case Design
  8. 03:11Cinder Brick Penetration vs. Real Threats
  9. 03:16Alternative: Boosting 7.62x51mm NATO
  10. 03:37Importance of NATO Standardization
  11. 03:54Single Ammunition Manufacturer Vulnerability
  12. 04:04What the Army Should Have Done: Bridging the Gap
  13. 04:15The 6mm/95 Grain Alternative (6.8 SPC)
  14. 04:54XM157 Laser Combat Optic: Cost and Purpose
  15. 05:47Reality Check: No Justification for the Cartridge
  16. 06:04NGSW Program Failed to Bridge 5.56 to 7.62 Gap
  17. 06:29Failed Trajectory and Penetration Improvements
  18. 06:377.62x51mm with 80,000 PSI AP Alternative
  19. 06:53Power vs. Volume: M7 vs. AK-47
  20. 07:21Four Cartridges for the Rifle: Training vs. Combat
  21. 07:57277 Fury vs. 308 Comparison
  22. 08:14Cons of the NGSW Program: Weight, Mobility, Tempo
  23. 08:31Uncontrollable Full Auto Fire Risk
  24. 08:48Reduced Barrel Life and Durability
  25. 09:01Sound Suppressor Issues: Not Hearing Safe
  26. 09:36Reduced Loadout: 100 Rounds vs. 210
  27. 09:53MHS Program Similarities: External Piston Issues
  28. 10:14Mud Test Discrepancies and Disingenuity
  29. 11:07External Piston Reliability vs. Internal
  30. 11:47Adoption Without Adequate Testing
  31. 12:07Field Failures: Charging Handle, Suppressors, Stocks
  32. 12:44Cost Analysis: Ammunition and Weapons
  33. 13:54NGSW vs. Historical Context (M14, AK-47)
  34. 14:21NGSW Unsuitability for Urban/Wooded Areas
  35. 14:38NGSW Not Suitable for Low Intensity Conflicts
  36. 14:53The 200-Meter Engagement Gap
  37. 15:04Likely Failure of NGSW Program
  38. 15:13Alternative: 6.8 SPC as Ideal Solution
  39. 15:24Industry Effects: SIG's Dominance
  40. 15:47Return to 7.62x51mm with 80,000 PSI AP
  41. 15:58Russian 6.02x41mm Cartridge Example
  42. 16:22True Velocity Lawsuit Against SIG
  43. 16:50Conclusion: Ongoing Problems and Research

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main criticisms of the US Army's NGSW program?

Key criticisms include the lack of justification for defeating advanced body armor at long ranges, the abandonment of NATO standardization, the high cost of the XM157 optic, and significant concerns about the reliability and logistical implications of the new 6.8x51mm cartridge, particularly its high-pressure AP variant.

Why is the 6.8x51mm cartridge in the NGSW program controversial?

The 6.8x51mm cartridge, especially in its standard load, offers little ballistic advantage over existing 7.62x51mm NATO rounds. Its high-pressure 80,000 PSI AP variant introduces risks of catastrophic failure, reduced weapon lifespan, and logistical challenges due to non-standardization.

What are the cost implications of the NGSW program?

The program is extremely expensive, with the XM7 rifle and optic costing approximately $17,744 per unit. Ammunition costs are also exorbitant, with the special purpose AP round priced at $2,147 per round, making a standard combat loadout prohibitively expensive.

How does the NGSW program's reliability compare to current systems like the M4?

The NGSW's external piston system has shown poor reliability in mud tests, failing quickly. Furthermore, the high-pressure cartridges and reduced barrel life suggest a decrease in overall durability and reliability compared to the M4 carbine.

What are the logistical and tactical drawbacks of the NGSW program?

The program abandons NATO standardization, hindering interoperability and ammunition sharing. It also reduces the soldier's ammunition loadout from 210 to 100 rounds and introduces a weapon system with a suppressor that is not hearing safe and affects weapon balance when removed.

Related News

All News →

More Reviews Videos You Might Like

More from SmallArmsSolutions

View all →