Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Alex needs to get in on this. At the very least the XCR deserves a shot at the title, even if it doesnt win the big prize...
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...ebate_052408w/
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday May 25, 2008 10:17:18 EDT
DALLAS — The M4 Carbine was not named anywhere on the agenda, but the Army’s individual weapon of choice for soldiers dominated discussions at this forum on small arms and fueled the debate over its future on the battlefield.
Speakers representing the small-arms industry, Congress and an arm of the Defense Department’s test community all used this year’s International Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium to call for the Army to put its M4 Carbine in competition against all comers from the commercial market to find out whether soldiers are carrying the best available weapon into combat.
“We think there should be a competition,” said Bryan O’Leary, speaking on behalf of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in a brief May 21 speech at the symposium.
For more than a year, the Army has been under scrutiny for continuing to equip all of its combat forces with the M4, a weapon that many contend is less reliable compared to more modern carbine designs available today. The Army began fielding the M4 in the mid 1990s.
Coburn has pressured Army leadership to look at other options, pointing to U.S. Special Operations Command’s move to replace its M16s and M4s with the newly developed Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, also known as SCAR.
Coburn has sought support from other members of Congress to convince the Army to hold a competition open to the entire small-arms industry, O’Leary said.
“We don’t care who wins,” he told audience members. “In the end, the taxpayers are going to win, and the soldiers are going to win and they are going to be carrying the best weapon that you can produce.”
The issue quickly became heated, however, when Air Force Col. Robert Mattes, the director of the Comparative Test Office for the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts, in a speech the same day, also cited the value of a carbine competition.
Retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. James R. Battaglini, chief operating officer for Colt Defense LLC, the sole manufacturer of the M4, defended the company’s carbine. He pointed to a recent study by the Center for Naval Analysis that surveyed soldiers on their weapons’ performance in combat. Soldiers gave the M4 an 89 percent approval rating in the study, he said.
“Nobody is complaining from the field. Nobody is writing their congressmen to say they’ve got a problem,” Battaglini said. “Fewer than 4 percent indicated they had experienced a stoppage that had a significant impact during an engagement and only 1 percent of soldiers recommended that the M4 be replaced.”
Battaglini criticized Coburn’s office and others for raising concerns when three other carbines outperformed the M4 late last year in an Army-run reliability test involving extreme dust conditions. The M4 logged more stoppages than the other three carbines combined.
Army weapons officials performed the test at the request of Coburn in July. Coburn took up the issue after a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army special operations forces to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Coburn is questioning the Army’s plan to spend $335 million to buy M4s through fiscal 2009.
“The spin on the dust test [was done] by those that have an agenda,” Battaglini continued, expressing disapproval of Army Times coverage of the M4.
“Army Times is totally out of line ... damning the service weapon that [soldiers in the field] have.”
Battaglini would not elaborate on his comments when Army Times asked for an interview after his speech.
He also pointed out that another symposium presentation, titled “Time for a Change — U.S. ‘Incremental’ Small Arms Fielding: Failures and Solutions” — was to be presented by a former military sales manager for Heckler & Koch.
H&K makes the 416 and the XM8, two weapons that performed better than the M4 in the Army’s recent reliability test.
Currently, Colt is the only company authorized to make the M4 for the U.S. military but that could change after the summer of 2009, when the arms maker will have to turn over the technical data rights to the Army.
Army officials have said the service may let other companies compete for a chance to make the M4 after that. the Army has budgeted $313 million in Colt M4 contracts for fiscal years 2010-2013.
When Battaglini concluded, Mattes responded that he respected Battaglini’s opinions, “but I disagree with them. All we want is a competition; that is all we are asking for.”
Mattes said SOCom did the same thing in 2004 when it held the SCAR competition and now it “has a first-rate, 21st century weapon that they are going to give to their war fighters.”
In an interview after his speech, Mattes said “I am not saying the M4 is a bad weapon system; it could win the competition.”
“Let me make it clear — this has nothing to do with Colt; this is all about the war fighter, and what the war fighter needs. All we are saying is let’s compete [the M4]. If you think this is the best weapon system in the world, then let’s compete it and find out. I don’t know why the Army is afraid to do that.”
Col. Robert Radcliffe from the Army’s Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., defended the M4 at several points of his presentation during the May 20 kickoff of the symposium.
“The M4 in my view is a world-class weapon,” Radcliffe said, speaking as part of the Joint Services Small Arms Synchronization Team. At Benning, Radcliffe is the head of the directorate of Combat Developments, the office that sets the requirements for Army small arms.
“M4 is effective in combat,” he said, referring to 6,000 entries by soldiers in Benning’s Post Combat Surveys that give M4 “a 90 percent approval rating.
“Our soldiers are not comparing M4 with other weapons; what they know is M4.”
Jim Schatz, the former H&K military sales manager, took issue with the survey results the Army used, saying during his May 21 presentation that soldiers in conventional combat units generally aren’t familiar with rifles or carbines other than the M16 and the M4.
“Keep in mind, most of these soldiers, the only thing they knew was the weapon that replaced the weapon that they received, so their point of reference is very limited,” said Schatz, whose presentation touched on everything from the history of Army weapons choices to how the service has spent several hundred million dollars on futuristic weapons projects that haven’t yielded any real results.
Schatz now works for the Technical Support Working Group, a test and evaluation agency under the Defense Department that supports multiple counterterrorism efforts in the federal government. Schatz did make it clear that his presentation was based on his personal perspective and not the position of TSWG.
His main focus though was to persuade Army weapons officials “to test what are deemed superior small arms that are available on the market today,” he said, adding that his presentation “pertains to more than just one weapon” and “to no particular manufacturer.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...ebate_052408w/
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday May 25, 2008 10:17:18 EDT
DALLAS — The M4 Carbine was not named anywhere on the agenda, but the Army’s individual weapon of choice for soldiers dominated discussions at this forum on small arms and fueled the debate over its future on the battlefield.
Speakers representing the small-arms industry, Congress and an arm of the Defense Department’s test community all used this year’s International Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium to call for the Army to put its M4 Carbine in competition against all comers from the commercial market to find out whether soldiers are carrying the best available weapon into combat.
“We think there should be a competition,” said Bryan O’Leary, speaking on behalf of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in a brief May 21 speech at the symposium.
For more than a year, the Army has been under scrutiny for continuing to equip all of its combat forces with the M4, a weapon that many contend is less reliable compared to more modern carbine designs available today. The Army began fielding the M4 in the mid 1990s.
Coburn has pressured Army leadership to look at other options, pointing to U.S. Special Operations Command’s move to replace its M16s and M4s with the newly developed Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, also known as SCAR.
Coburn has sought support from other members of Congress to convince the Army to hold a competition open to the entire small-arms industry, O’Leary said.
“We don’t care who wins,” he told audience members. “In the end, the taxpayers are going to win, and the soldiers are going to win and they are going to be carrying the best weapon that you can produce.”
The issue quickly became heated, however, when Air Force Col. Robert Mattes, the director of the Comparative Test Office for the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts, in a speech the same day, also cited the value of a carbine competition.
Retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. James R. Battaglini, chief operating officer for Colt Defense LLC, the sole manufacturer of the M4, defended the company’s carbine. He pointed to a recent study by the Center for Naval Analysis that surveyed soldiers on their weapons’ performance in combat. Soldiers gave the M4 an 89 percent approval rating in the study, he said.
“Nobody is complaining from the field. Nobody is writing their congressmen to say they’ve got a problem,” Battaglini said. “Fewer than 4 percent indicated they had experienced a stoppage that had a significant impact during an engagement and only 1 percent of soldiers recommended that the M4 be replaced.”
Battaglini criticized Coburn’s office and others for raising concerns when three other carbines outperformed the M4 late last year in an Army-run reliability test involving extreme dust conditions. The M4 logged more stoppages than the other three carbines combined.
Army weapons officials performed the test at the request of Coburn in July. Coburn took up the issue after a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army special operations forces to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Coburn is questioning the Army’s plan to spend $335 million to buy M4s through fiscal 2009.
“The spin on the dust test [was done] by those that have an agenda,” Battaglini continued, expressing disapproval of Army Times coverage of the M4.
“Army Times is totally out of line ... damning the service weapon that [soldiers in the field] have.”
Battaglini would not elaborate on his comments when Army Times asked for an interview after his speech.
He also pointed out that another symposium presentation, titled “Time for a Change — U.S. ‘Incremental’ Small Arms Fielding: Failures and Solutions” — was to be presented by a former military sales manager for Heckler & Koch.
H&K makes the 416 and the XM8, two weapons that performed better than the M4 in the Army’s recent reliability test.
Currently, Colt is the only company authorized to make the M4 for the U.S. military but that could change after the summer of 2009, when the arms maker will have to turn over the technical data rights to the Army.
Army officials have said the service may let other companies compete for a chance to make the M4 after that. the Army has budgeted $313 million in Colt M4 contracts for fiscal years 2010-2013.
When Battaglini concluded, Mattes responded that he respected Battaglini’s opinions, “but I disagree with them. All we want is a competition; that is all we are asking for.”
Mattes said SOCom did the same thing in 2004 when it held the SCAR competition and now it “has a first-rate, 21st century weapon that they are going to give to their war fighters.”
In an interview after his speech, Mattes said “I am not saying the M4 is a bad weapon system; it could win the competition.”
“Let me make it clear — this has nothing to do with Colt; this is all about the war fighter, and what the war fighter needs. All we are saying is let’s compete [the M4]. If you think this is the best weapon system in the world, then let’s compete it and find out. I don’t know why the Army is afraid to do that.”
Col. Robert Radcliffe from the Army’s Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., defended the M4 at several points of his presentation during the May 20 kickoff of the symposium.
“The M4 in my view is a world-class weapon,” Radcliffe said, speaking as part of the Joint Services Small Arms Synchronization Team. At Benning, Radcliffe is the head of the directorate of Combat Developments, the office that sets the requirements for Army small arms.
“M4 is effective in combat,” he said, referring to 6,000 entries by soldiers in Benning’s Post Combat Surveys that give M4 “a 90 percent approval rating.
“Our soldiers are not comparing M4 with other weapons; what they know is M4.”
Jim Schatz, the former H&K military sales manager, took issue with the survey results the Army used, saying during his May 21 presentation that soldiers in conventional combat units generally aren’t familiar with rifles or carbines other than the M16 and the M4.
“Keep in mind, most of these soldiers, the only thing they knew was the weapon that replaced the weapon that they received, so their point of reference is very limited,” said Schatz, whose presentation touched on everything from the history of Army weapons choices to how the service has spent several hundred million dollars on futuristic weapons projects that haven’t yielded any real results.
Schatz now works for the Technical Support Working Group, a test and evaluation agency under the Defense Department that supports multiple counterterrorism efforts in the federal government. Schatz did make it clear that his presentation was based on his personal perspective and not the position of TSWG.
His main focus though was to persuade Army weapons officials “to test what are deemed superior small arms that are available on the market today,” he said, adding that his presentation “pertains to more than just one weapon” and “to no particular manufacturer.”
