A reader tipped me off to this amendment to the solicitation for the OICW Increment 1, which the XM8 and other assault rifle systems were competing for. The important bits:

The purpose of this Amendment is to CANCEL Solicitation W15QKN-05-R-0449, OICW Increment One.

This action has been taken in order for the Army to reevaluate its priorites for small caliber weapons, and to incorporate emerging requirements identified during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Government will also incorporate studies looking into current capability gaps during said reevaluation.

Download the entire amendment (Word doc) here. See the solicitation’s main page here.

This isn’t unexpected, given the backsliding over the past year or so after it appeared that the XM8 might be on fast track. If the “said reevaluation” includes a long hard look at the 5.56, this will probably all be worth it.

Looks like the Marines and SOCOM, who adopted the M16A4 and the FN-SCAR (respectively) despite initial interest in the XM8, made good calls.

MO will hopefully have more on this soon.

Been thin on X-weapon news for quite some time. Last week I noted once again the return of the M79 grenade launcher, and a discussion in the comments section led to the merits of “smart grenades”, magazine-fed launchers, and such.

Lo and behold, in today’s Strategy Page:

The XM-25 grenade launcher, which began field testing last May, is now being tested by American troops in Germany as well. So far, the troops have been very enthusiastic about the new weapon. Those who have served in Iraq, say the XM-25 would come in very handy there, because enemy gunmen often duck behind cars or other obstacles, and the XM-25 was designed to quickly get at people behind that kind of cover.

There’s more background info on the XM25 at the link, though nothing really new.

Unless the XM25 isn’t performing well, which doesn’t seem to be the case from what I’ve been able to gather, some should be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible for some real-world testing. It’s the only way to be sure.

(Click for better look)

This story has been running for a couple of days now in the Dilbert, but it’s suddenly so clear. Their project is the OICW Increment 1 program. As always, check out Dilbert.com for legal access to the cartoons.

The SOC recently ordered some of the new M60E4 “Commando” 7.62 machine guns, improved and lighter than other M60s. Now they’re getting a newer, lighter version of the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, as well, the Mk46 MOD0.

The Special Forces seem to be pretty unimpressed by the procurement process of the rest of the Army and are just going their own way with small arms. Don’t be surprised if many SOC choices end up in the regular Army if programs like the OICW (including the XM8) continue to stay bogged down. The Special Forces will have new weapons in the field and they’ll show what they can do. The rest of the Army will see it, they’ll get jealous, and soon fires will be lit under some seats.

Back in January of 2004, I wrote this:

The XM8 seems to be an aberration in the military procurement sector.

I was referring, specifically, to the fact that the weapon seemed to be an improvement on all fronts over its predecessor and that the cost wasn’t spiraling out of control. Another aberration from standard operating procedure was the fact that the program had moved along pretty quickly and appeared ready to field production weapons on schedule.

That, of course, was in January of 2004.

As readers of this site will no doubt know, the XM8 program has run into a number of snags since that time, most glaringly a new Sources Sought Notice for assault rifle manufacturers and the inclusion of light machine gun requirements into the specification.

Here’s the latest amendment:

The purpose of this Amendment is to temporarily suspend all action on Solicitation W15QKN-05-R-0449, OICW Increment One. The Solicitation will be suspended pending completion of a final requirements review. The duration of this suspension is anticipated to be approximately eight (8) weeks.

Any offeror intending to continue work on proposal submissions during this suspension, must do so at their own risk.

The solicitation closing date will also be extended beyond 07 November 2005. An extension to the closing date will be determined when the suspension is lifted, and all action on the subject Solicitation has resumed.

In addition, a second Amendment will be posted informing all potential offerors, that action on the subject Solicitation has resumed.

As in “stop whatever it is you’re doing until we figure out what we’re doing”.

Here’s more information at Defenselink:

The Army’s proposal has received interest from the other military services, and is further supported by several internal reviews reinforcing the increase in the potential for joint use.

Congressional notification has been made and today’s suspension of the program allows joint requirements to be viewed and incorporated through the Joint Capability and Integration and Development System process, which will occur immediately. Original solicitation started May 11, 2005, and is temporarily suspended effective July 19, 2005, until the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee (JROC) convenes, which is currently scheduled for early September.

Upon the JROC’s completion, the committee will issue a memorandum, which incorporates any new joint OICW-1 requirements. The RFP will be amended accordingly, and issued with a revised effective date for receipt of proposals.

This basically means that the other services have shown an interest in the OICW-1 program and want to get their two cents in before decisions are made.

No doubt, before all is said and done, the weapons will incorporate parachutes for the Air Force and Mae Wests for the Navy. The Marines will be laughing because they decided in March of 2004 to go with the M16A4 instead of the XM8.

Two brigades were already supposed to have the XM8. Now it will be September before the final requirements for a new weapon are even determined. Several months, at least, will be given for manufacturers to digest these and submit proposals. Then samples will have to be built and tested and the competition really begins.

In other words, don’t hold your breath for a new assault rifle.

I’ll post more on this as more info becomes available.

In the meantime, here is some additional coverage at Defense Industry Daily. Also, be sure to check out this summary of the Army’s small-arms plan in National Defense Magazine if you haven’t already done so.

Also, while browsing the some responses to questions and comments regarding the solicitation I came across some that might be of interest to MO readers. Sort of an OICW supplier’s FAQ:

>>Barrel life of 15001 rounds would be major strength, 14999 rounds would be major weakness. We recommend creating a range for the strength factor. What is the firing and maintenance schedule and what kind of ammo is used to determine barrel life?

The government has addressed this issue and is reflected in the updated the RFP. The following: Barrel wear will be measured at intervals of 1,000 rounds. 15,000 rounds is the threshold requirement. As stated in section L, M855 ammunition will be used. Maintenance will be system dependent. Firing schedule will be in 30 rd complements: First is semi-automatic @ 1 rd/sec; then a 30-rd complement of 3 rd bursts every 5-sec. Each cycle is 120 rounds. Gun will then be allowed to cool before resuming testing.

>>Please explain why it is necessary for the LMG to mount a bayonet.

It is a requirement of the family that all variants except the Special Compact mount a bayonet.

>>Inert Weapons – the requirement for inert weapons will significantly impact the delivery of standard weapons and should be delayed until after the delivery of the first contract weapons. In addition, additional details are required to define what will actually be required in order that they do not meet the requirements of functional firearms.

The Government does not believe delivery of these items should impact the delivery of functional weapons.These specific deliverables are to be non-weapons specifically constructed as such so as to not be subject to the regulatory requirements for small arms required of the United States Government. The intent is to permit legally unconstrained transportation, storage and display for educational and instructive purposes. Since the intent of this hardware is for display and educational purposes, it is required that the exterior of these replicas be as close in appearance and feel as practical to the “real” weapons they are modeled after while maintaining their non-weapon legal status.

>>Test Support Package – this states that a number of rifle variants will be endurance tested to 18,000 rounds and LMGs to 50,000 rounds. Since this is not mentioned anywhere else in the RFP, are these life requirements for OICW variants?

No. It is planned that follow on Production Prove-out Testing (post-contract award) will require firing of 18,000 rounds per weapon. The round count is provided to allow offerors the ability to estimate spare parts requirements.

>>Is the visible white light required to be part of the primary fire control or can it be an attachable flashlight as required by sections C.3.1.47.6 and M.9.5.i?

It can be submitted as an attachable device or as part of the primary fire control.

>>The LMG is required to only fire fully automatically. Please explain if this does not conflict with sections M.8.1.j and M.11.1.b and section 3.5.11 of the performance spec that require the ability of all variants to fire in semi and full auto. Can we submit a LMG that fires fully automatically only?

The requirement is to provide a reconfigurable family of weapons where one variant may be configurable to another. Per doctrine, the primary firing mode of the LMG is full automatic fire. Submission of an LMG with full automatic fire only will be evaluated accordingly (reference ID 1.30).

>>If reliability testing may go to 18,000 rounds, is there a minimum round life requirement for each variant of the OICW family of weapons?

At this time, the Government is testing only for reliability and barrel life. Weapon life testing will not be conducted.

>>Evaluation standards – this sections requires that the magazines be improved over current fielded magazines in terms of ruggedness and reliability. This is not mentioned in the performance standard. Is it a requirement? How will this be determined?

Magazines will be evaluated during competition as part of the system. The magazines will not be evaluated separately for ruggedness and reliability at this time.

>>This states that the LMG will be fired at a rate of 72 rounds per minute for ten minutes (720 rounds). This is more ammunition than the gunner will have available. Please explain why this is not for 600 rounds as described in section 3.8.9 of the performance spec.

72 rounds per minute for ten minutes is a technical requirement. Para 3.8.9 of the performance specification establishes cook-off levels only. Please note that bid samples will be evaluated against criteria in sections L & M only, not the P-spec.

>>Please explain how it will be determined if the primary Fire Control is compatible with the current AN/PVS-7 and AN/PVS-14.

Utilizing an AN/PVS-7 and AN/PVS-14, test personnel will function the fire control IR lasers to determine if they are visible to the tester.

>>How will variants be rated if they equal the weight of the current system?

If variants weights are equal to current systems, they will be rated as a strength. RFP has been updated to reflect this change.

>>Aural or visual detection – the requirement is for the external color to be consistent with current camouflage colors and patterns. What color? Brown? Green? In pattern? Please provide additional information.

The weapon color is not specified. However, the guidance is that it shall be of varying, neutral color shades found in the Army Battle Dress Uniform, Desert Combat Uniform, or the Advanced Combat Uniform. The color shall be such that it prevents or reduces solar loading. Please note that the Performance Spec has been amended to include a requirement that the weapon be a color other than black. However, there is no color requirement for the bid samples.

>>Area suppression lethality module – what is the minimum life required for firing 40mm grenades? Will the requirement be to mount the M203 or the XM320? If it is for the XM320, will we be provided a sample (or drawings of the interface) to determine compliance for attachment?

There shall be no degradation in reliability or damage to the host weapon system. The requirement is to provide attachment points that serve as recoil bearing surfaces to withstand the recoil forces generated by the ASLM. It is possible that the ASLM interface can be modified (if required) to mount on the OICW Increment I.

>>Acoustic and blast suppressor compatibility – since no suppressor is required as part of the OICW submission, is it required to fit some specific suppressor or is some specific mount required?

Not being evaluated under the Bid Sample Tests.

>>Sling – please define “quick release type fasteners”.

Fasteners that can be attached/removed quickly and without tools. For example, pushing a button to release a latch. No screws.

>>Collapsible/adjustable bipod – please define how much adjustment is required for the bipod. Please define what is meant by “minimum torque TBD ft-lbs in the direction opposite of the forward movement”.

The Performance Specification para 3.6.15 has been updated to reflect the following requirement. The DM and LMG shall have a collapsible and adjustable bipod. The bipod, shall have a collapsed length from the centerline of the bore of no more than 10.75 inches. When extended, the length of the bipod shall be no less than 14.0 inches when measured from the centerline of the bore. When extended/open, the bipod shall be able to withstand a minimum impact energy of 88.40 lbf-ft at an angle of 55 degrees without collapsing or loss of functionality.

>>Accessory attachment points – please explain what is meant by “capable of alignment with respect to the barrel, accurately, and repeat ably”. Fixed rails are designed to be parallel to the barrel. Are permanent/fixed rails considered to be integral and will they meet the objective?

The sentence “capable of alignment with respect to the barrel, accurately, and repeatably” refers to being able to remove and mount the sight or other FC accessory and maintain alignment with the barrel. Permanent/fixed rails may meet this requirement.

>>Resident accessories power – please explain if this requires one central power supply to be used for all resident accessories.

As a threshold, a common type power source means, for example, a battery that is available commercially and easily procured. The objective requirement is to operate from a single, central power supply.

>>Round counter – please explain if this can also be used to replace requirement 3.8.6 for inventory with an automated system. Also, please explain what is meant by “powered from the OICW common type power source”. We are unaware of any round counter that can count, give date and time and differentiate between ball and blank rounds. Please provide information on what type of interface will be required. Please provide information that is TBD. Will this be based on battery life or equipment life? Can the round counter be integrated with the Fire Control?

This requirement is separate from 3.8.6. However, it is not exclusive, if the offeror can combine the two, that may be beneficial. Powered from the OICW common type power source means uses the same battery type. Interface with the rounds counter is up to the offeror to determine. There is no TBD on this requirement. While the round counter may be integrated into the FC, it must remain with the weapon if the FC is removed.

>>Workmanship – should the section “hammering to shape” be interpreted to not allow hammer-forged barrels or does it only apply to repair operations?

“Hammering to shape” refers only to repair operations during manufacturing of the weapons.

>>Can you please specify the Threshold and Objective goals for weapon unit weight? There are conflicting numbers in the specification.

The weights have been updated to reflect the weights as shown in sections L&M. The Carbine system should weigh no more than 9.19 lbs, which is equivalent to an M4 MWS with an M68, BUIS, PEQ-2A, visible red laser pointer, white light flashlight, and empty magazine. The SC system should weigh no more than 8.39 lbs which is equivalent to a modified M4 MWS with a ten (10) inch barrel, an M68, BUIS, PEQ-2A, visible red laser pointer, white light flashlight, and empty magazine. The DM system should weigh no more than 11.43 lbs which is equivalent to an M16A4 MWS with an ACOG, BUIS, PEQ-2A, Harris bipod, visible red laser pointer, white light flashlight, and empty magazine. The LMG system should weigh no more than 16 lbs without sling or ammunition.

>>The specification asks for a “family of stocks” for the rifle but provides no information about what capabilities and requirements are being met. Please provide specifics as to what this “family of stocks” should be able to accomplish and whether a universal stock capable of meeting all specs & requirements would be equally acceptable.

A family of stocks refer to interchangeable stocks that may be used on any variant. E.g. if the Carbine has a standard stock, and the DM has a DM specific stock, the soldier may interchange them as needed for the mission. Specific stocks are based on the offeror, and are not mandatory. As long as the requirements for each variant are met (size and weight), a universal stock is acceptable.

>>Section M.11.1.a states that it will be considered a weakness if a single weapon is capable of performing multiple roles within the OICW family. Can the Army please provide a justification for this rating? If a manufacturer can produce a single weapon that meets all of the performance requirements, e.g., for the Carbine and Special Compact rifles, why would the Army specifically choose to have multiple models with different logistic needs in inventory? Similarly, if a Carbine is capable of meeting the accuracy requirements of the Designated Marksman rifle, why would it be considered a negative that all of the delivered Carbines would be suitable for use as a DM weapon?

The RFP has been updated to reflect that a weapon system that is capable of serving dual roles and meet the requirements, will not be rated negatively.

There’s been a dearth of news on the XM8 program lately, so we’re left to scrounge the Georgia employment reports for any info:

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue’s office announced Wednesday that the city is receiving $300,000 from the OneGeorgia Authority to help Sterling, Va.-based Heckler & Koch Defense open a plant in Columbus.

Nearly two years ago, H&K announced plans to construct a $20 million manufacturing facility in Muscogee Technology Park off Macon Road. The 100,000- to 150,000-square-foot plant would sit on 40 acres in the 1,500-acre park and employ more than 200 people.

The company, however, is still working to land a huge federal contract to make the XM8 assault rifle for the U.S. military. On Thursday, H&K said the $300,000 OneGeorgia grant will go toward the purchase of a 13,000-square-foot former Cessna facility in Columbus East Industrial Park. The company would not discuss how many jobs the smaller plant might create.

“This facility will serve as the warehouse, distribution, assembly and design center for HK Defense operations in North America,” H&K President Peter Simon said in a statement. “To accommodate the special logistical and security requirements of HK Defense, the building will need several modifications, which will be made by local firms from the Columbus, Ga., area. We continue to hold an option on the original factory site.”

Fryer said he anticipates working with H&K starting in July to begin hiring people to get the downsized plant operating. The pay range for some jobs will be $9 to $12 an hour, he said.

If anyone has any XM8 tips, send them to MO.

Wait. That didn’t come out quite right…

Anyway, James Rummel has a good post entitled Just Some Friendly Competition with a little history, a little opinion, a few pics, and a bunch of links. Go read.

Not sure how I missed it this weekend. Must have been my case of starwarsitis…

We Fear Change

Buckethead at the Ministry of Minor Perfidy (yeah, those guys that tried to out-dork each other some time back…) has a great little post up on an encounter with a couple of Marine corporals. He asked them about the XM8. One was against it, but the second was a bit more open to the new weapon:

He said that he had actually fired the weapon in Ashkanistan (his word) and was very impressed by the weapon’s recoil system.

“You can squeeze off three rounds on full auto before the barrel even starts to rise. Close groups, easy to handle. The only problem is, three rounds of five-five-six won’t put a jihadi down. Maybe if we could use hollow points or a soft nose bullet, the stopping power would be better.”

This sentiment won’t be unfamiliar to regular MO readers.

Go read the whole thing.

Incidentally, the Marine Corps decided over a year ago that they would be going with the M16A4 rather than the XM8 or another replacement for the M16/M4 system. Last fall, Marine Corps Times ran an op-ed (linked to and covered here) that specifically pointed out the ammunition debate as a reason to hold off on adopting a new standard rifle in the Corps.

A couple of readers have emailed me on this subject, and here’s what I’ve come up with.

Insurgents in western Iraq fight to finish
This story from yesterday centers on the 3-25 Marines, the Reserve regiment that was mentioned earlier for losing an entire squad either killed or wounded. The fact that this regiment has been the center of most stories seems to indicate that the WaPo reporter, apparently only one of three American reporters actually reporting from Matador, is embedded with them.

It’s a good report stuffed full of details. It’s too bad that the media doesn’t have more guys outside the wire. I guess they’d rather hang out in the relative safety of Green Zone hotels and file reports on suicide bombers instead of covering the war.

Here’s a snippet from page 2:

They turned up weapons cache after weapons cache: bombs made to be dropped from airplanes, a bicycle with a seat made of explosives and an antenna for remote-control triggering, a vest rigged with explosives, a car rigged with bombs, mortar tubes, rocket launchers with new backpacks full of rockets, artillery shells.

The costly equipment, as well as body armor later recovered from the bodies of dead insurgents, suggested that the fighters were foreigners, the military said. Though the level of foreigners’ involvement in the insurgency has been disputed for nearly two years, Muslim men have come to Iraq from neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and from as far away as Chechnya and Indonesia to fight the United States and its allies.

The Marines also found Soviet-designed PKM machine guns and belts of armor-piercing ammunition. In contrast, Lima Company was armed with M-16 assault rifles and carried nothing comparable — nothing that could penetrate walls and floors and still pack enough force to kill. [emphasis mine]

First of all, we’ve heard that many of these guys are foreigners and appear to have military training and equipment. Not your typical raghead jihadist.

They’ve not only got heavy weapons that can defeat our body armor. They’ve got body armor of their own.

This is trouble.

We’ve been going against, by and large, Joe Jihadist now for the past couple of years. This guy, for the most part, scrapes together whatever he can and charges the US Marines. He often gets a step or two before he’s cut down.

Now, really for the first time since the invasion, we’re running into trained, organized, disciplined soldiers who are equipped to fight a modern soldier. Now, don’t get me wrong. The Devil Dogs are wiping the floor with them.

But it probably isn’t nearly as easy as they’re used to. And it could be a harbinger of things to come.

Our Marines with M16 rifles are finding themselves outgunned.

Let me repeat that. Just in case it didn’t sink in.

The Marines are, on occasion anyway, seriously outgunned.

This isn’t a reason to run for the hills in panic. But it’s certainly a reason to pause and reassess our plan for the future. Marines with M16s are having trouble. What does that forbode for troops with an XM8, for instance? The XM8 fires the same 5.56×45 round that the M16, but the barrel is significantly shorter. So the velocity just isn’t there to punch through walls or body armor.

“As soon as he kicks the door, the machine-gun fire cuts him down,” said Hurley, a Dayton, Ohio, police officer serving in the Marine reserves. The Marine survived, but a second fell as well, fatally wounded. From inside, a foreign fighter fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the door.

At some point, the screamed prayers began: “Allahu Akbar” — “God is great.”

Marines fell, unable to tell the source of the screams or the shots. They fired blindly, as machine-gun rounds cratered the walls and floors around them.

“Our rounds couldn’t get through the walls,” Hurley said.

I hope a decision-maker is reading this very carefully.

Now, this news story on MSNBC.com certainly highlights the negatives and praises (though oftentimes with words of Marines) the tactics of the enemy. But the fact that our Marines were astonished by an enemy’s weaponry is troubling. I expect them to be amazed at the suicidal tendencies the jihadists often show. But something needs to be done about this 5.56 mess, XM8 or no XM8.

Meanwhile, ACE thinks that the 6.8 SPC will soon be no more than a collector’s item.

I don’t know what the answer is. But I don’t think the 5.56 NATO is it.

ATK XM25 25mm Grenade Launcher for Future Infantry. Will it fly?

David Crane at Defense Review has a great post up on the XM25 Smart Grenade Launcher. Definitely worth a look-see.

(And I learned of it via Google News Alerts. How did Defense Review make the Google News list? That’s AWESOME!)