FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky — Roughly 200 Airborne Infantry Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) are running the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) system through its paces here from Sept. 1 to Oct. 30.
Soldiers from Alpha and Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment are taking part in an operational assessment (OA) featuring a range of weapon configurations, force-on-force engagements and static live-fire ranges.
It is a key step in modernizing the combat force and aims to impact over 120,000 U.S. Army Soldiers, according to Mr. Elbert L. Grayson, Supervisory Military Test Plans Analyst, Maneuver Test Directorate, U.S. Army Operational Test Command.
“The Army needs equipment to continually evolve, to meet the threat of our adversaries,” said Grayson.
The NGSW system will be the next stage in that evolution.
“Information is needed to make improvements to the NGSW that will benefit America’s most precious resource, our Soldiers,” Grayson added.
The new weapon system is slated to replace the M4 carbine and M249 squad automatic weapons, representing a significant advancement in firepower, range and accuracy.
“Having seen the capabilities of the 6.8 [mm] round, I have confidence that it will easily do in one to two rounds, what the 5.56 [mm] did in two to four,” said Capt. John M. Green, Commander of A-CO, 1-506th, 101st ABN DIV.
Direct feedback from U.S. Army Soldiers provides invaluable insight to ensure future warfighters receive the best possible equipment when it matters most.
“The force on force is really exciting, really fun, getting in there and doing training against human beings, not just targets, and actually squaring off [against another] unit making plans and objectives, I think it is a really good training experience for sure,” explained Sgt. Todd Smallwood, First Squad Team Leader, A-CO, 1-506th, 101st ABN DIV.
According to Grayson, the NGSW testing is being conducted under the most rigorous conditions to simulate real combat and ensure that the weapon can meet the demand of future conflicts.
“We have been doing the operational assessment on the NGSW weapons, the XM7, the XM250, and also with the XM157 scopes on the weapon systems,” said Smallwood. “We’ve been doing quite a bit of ranges, and pop-up targets, trying to recreate platoon assault objectives.”
Besides standard training environments, the operational assessment was designed to simulate combat as closely as possible.
“The capability of the [6.8mm] round being able to puncture and turn cover into concealment, I think it will make a huge difference in urban and forest environments,” said Smallwood.
Soldiers were challenged to perform individual movement techniques (IMT) while engaging targets up to 300 meters away. This IMT lane requires Soldiers to bound, low-crawl, and high-crawl while maintaining accurate fire, ensuring that the weapon performed reliably under strenuous conditions.
They had to complete the course while under simulated combat stress, pushing their physical and mental limits.
“We did 72 hours of force-on-force (FOF), urban rifle marksmanship (URM), and we’re going to finish with a stress shoot,” said 1st Sgt. Barron C. Garrard, First Sergeant of A-CO, 1-506th, 101st ABN DIV. “I think it [the NGSW] will change daily life in the way that we fight.”
In preparation for future operational environments, Soldiers also tested the NGSW in simulated chemical, biologic, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) environments.
“I like the fact that the testing of equipment has a possible impact on the next generation Soldiers that will be using it,” said Grayson. “My son is a Soldier that may use equipment that I have had a part in testing, so I’m motivated to provide the most accurate data for Army leadership to make the most informed acquisition decision.”
This critical aspect of the assessment ensured that the weapon system can be operated even in the aftermath of a chemical, nuclear or biological environment.
“The NGSW’s advanced capabilities and comprehensive training program will significantly enhance the lethality and survivability of our troops,& ensuring they are prepared for the challenges of future combat operations,” said Mr. Troy , Test Officer in Charge with MTD. “The 6.8mm round offers superior ballistic performance and the NGSW overall represents a significant leap in lethality.
“I feel privileged to be part of this transformative period for the Army,” Willey continued. “Working with the Soldiers who are assigned this system during the assessment is an absolute honor.”
By Mr. Thomas Mort, Audio Visual Specialist, and Maj. Thomas Lorenson, Senior Test and Evaluation Officer, Maneuver Test Directorate, U.S. Army Operational Test Command
Did the force on force exercise have the OPFOR using 556 weapons where the individual rifleman is carrying 210rds of ammo in 30rd magazines giving them superior suppression capability to guys carrying 120rds in 20rd mags? Did it occur in an urban cluster where the majority of future combat is predicted to occur, making the long range advantage of the 21st century battle rifle obsolete? This is an awesome rifle and ammo technology. Have yet to hear any intelligent argument how it will revive the battle rifle as superior on the modern battle field.
Where are you getting that loadout for the M7? In the third picture the rifleman appears to have one mag in the rifle, a triple shingle across his carrier, and two mags on each side of his body in pouches. Literature on the fielding says loadout will be seven magazines, but some imagery seems to indicate troops carrying more that that.
Yeah, troops have always have the option of carrying more ammo than the “standard” load. Why wouldn’t you?
The pacing threat is modern ceramic armor. We will do what we always have and carry more shit. The weight isn’t the issue.
Weight isn’t an issue…
Obviously someone who has never been in the field for duration or has ever talked to someone who has.
85lbs of light weight gear.
The VA has determined your back and knee problems are not service related.
There will always be urban battles, but that doesn’t mean future warfare is limited to urban. Our earth is still, the vast majority, non-urban. And we’re not just talking about focusing only on the past in Afghanistan. Have you seen the vast distances of engagements in the Sahel? Or on the tundra above the arctic circle? Just two examples, but there are many more regions around the world that are wide open.
But even in urban environments, 6.8×51 is superior at destroying/penetrating cinderblocks and bricks. For the XM7 this isn’t as much of a benefit, but it absolutely is for the XM250.
All that said, the M4 still has a place, even within infantry line companies. It should be an option to choose one or the other depending on the OE. Mission dictates and all that. Leaders, grenadiers, enablers like RTOs/mine sweepers, and attached elements like medics should also still carry the M4.
Or we can just not do that and instead only have one general issue round. There’s no legit reason to have multiple general issue weapons that use different rounds.
Sorry but this sounds like buncombe.
First the question of “superior suppression” based purely on magazine size misses that both also have LMGs the M250 and M249 with similar belt size. Farther it give an estimated assumption on total ammunition capacity which creates the question, is this about how much ammunition you think can be dumped? If that’s the case then after an engagement you might as well turn in the weapons for replacement. Because in either system the M4A1 or M7, M249 or M250 you are cooking the barrel.
Yes combat where sustained fire does happen from time to time but it’s not that common in infantry battles.
This also assumes that all urban battles are by definition CQB. Inside clearing of buildings yes. However anyone who has read of the fighting in Iraq should be aware of the Rise of the DMR and use of Snipers that took place. Anyone who read history of urban conflict knows that longer engagement beyond 400m has taken place in urban conflicts. Cities are man made mixed terrain. Farther we have seen in Iraq, Syria, Ukraine substantial use of snipers and ranged weapons.
Hi Mr. Mort and MAJ Lorenson, infantrymen in the 101st aren’t “Airborne” Infantry Soldiers. 101st being labeled Airborne doesn’t make them Airborne soldiers. The 506th is currently an Infantry Regiment, not a Parachute Infantry Regiment. Their task org charts will generally show them as either Air Mobile or Air Assault infantry in NATO symbology. NOT Airborne infantry.
I don’t have access to FMSWEB, but I’m pretty sure it would show that those infantrymen are not filling airborne billets.
The 101st is still called “Airborne” and has in parentheses (Air Assault)
You didn’t actually read what I wrote, did you.
Yes, I said the 101st still has the Airborne monicker. But it is for the sake of history, and does not make their infantrymen “airborne infantry”.
But the infantry battalions within the 101st are not part of PARACHUTE Infantry Regiments like real airborne infantry in the 82nd. The battalions within the 101st are “just” Infantry Regiments. When J3/G3/S3 shops are doing plans, the symbology used for 101st infantry units is air mobile/assault. NOT airborne.
And more importantly, the individual billets in the MTOE of the 101st’s infantry units are not marked as airborne billets.
This isn’t a quibbling over the division name, this is correctly using doctrinal naming conventions based on skill coded billets and operational capability.
It ultimately doesn’t matter if they’re actually airborne or not. It’s a dying concept and no one cares about your status as such unless you’ve got a combat jump.
Good explanation PB, but the legs will not understand it or will willfully choose not to acknowledge the difference between actual Parachute Infantry Regiments and Infantry Regiments. The 101st’s best claim to “Airborne” status is through the glidermen of WW2, who though not parachute qualified, were airborne because of their assignment to Airborne units and capability to conduct vertical envelopment by insertion using one-way aircraft.