On 30 March, nearly 40 weapons manufacturers packed into a hotel across the street from the Pentagon knowing that only one of them will prevail in the Army’s carbine competition to determine who makes the best carbine in the world. The group gathered to hear Army leaders answer questions regarding its full and open competition, which is slated to begin in May. The competition is part of the Army’s “Dual Path Strategy” to improve its M4 Carbine weapon system while simultaneously challenging industry to present a better carbine.
In his remarks to industry at the Army’s Carbine Competition pre-solicitation conference, Lt. Gen. Michael Vane, deputy commanding general, futures, and director, Army Capabilities Integration Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, emphasized the importance of equipping small units in an era of persistent conflict stating, “The individual carbine is of critical importance in giving the Soldier the decisive edge in the close combat arena and it is a key component of an integrated Soldier and small unit system.”
“We must always seek the best available weapon systems and equipment for our Soldiers,” said Lt. Gen. William N. (Bill) Phillips, principal military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition Logistics and Technology) addressing industry members. “They depend upon us and we cannot let them down. The Army can’t do it alone. Industry can’t do it alone. But when we work together, I believe we can do it in a most powerful way.”
The Army has fully funded the competition that supports the Army’s strategic emphasis to increase the capabilities of small units. In separate remarks, Lt. Gen. Michael A. Vane, deputy commanding general, futures, and director, Army Capabilities Integration Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, emphasized the importance of equipping small units in an era of persistent conflict. Lt. Gen. Vane stressed that the future operational environment will exhibit uncertainty and complexity and result in the dispersion of the infantry squad on the battlefield.
“There are indications that gaps exist within the capabilities we require of our Soldiers and units,” said Lt. Gen. Vane. “The individual carbine is of critical importance in giving the Soldier the decisive edge in the close combat arena and it is a key component of an integrated Soldier and small unit system.”
The Army carbine competition is the first such contest for an Army service rifle in the past hundred years. The competition will determine the most effective, accurate, and reliable individual weapon available for the Soldier. Any weapon chosen in the competition would also feature better ergonomic features and be compatible with the current accessories and enablers (i.e. sights, grips, sensors, lasers, grenade launchers, etc). The competition is fully funded through the “Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation” phase.
“The M4 is a world-class weapon that our commanders and Soldiers trust and in which we have the utmost confidence,” added Lt. Gen. Phillips. “Still, the Army has produced a new requirement to seek the best commercially available small arms weapon on today’s market.”
Col. Doug Tamilio, Project Manager Soldier Weapons, hosted the full day event in which a panel of acquisitions experts and program managers addressed approximately one hundred questions put forth by industry – from issues relating to the smallest details to big picture timelines. Col. Tamilio told the audience that the Army expects to release the final “Request for Proposals” (RFP) in May and will give each industry member 90 days to submit their single weapon design that they feel best meets the Army requirement. The competition phase is expected to last two years, although the time frames will vary based upon the number of entrants received and qualified for each phase.
After the completion of the first two test phases, the competition will enter a third “down select” phase where up to three finalists will be awarded contracts to produce limited numbers of test articles. The down select phase will include significant “user in the loop” testing where Soldiers will put the weapons through their paces in a limited user evaluation. The M4A1 will be tested alongside each of the competing designs in order to establish a baseline data set for performance comparison. After determining the weapon that best meets the requirement, top Army leaders will conduct a business case analysis to determine if it is in the best interest of the Army to procure the winning carbine, and if so, what the ultimate fielding plan would be. Combined, there are currently about 1.1 million M16s and M4s in the Army inventory.
Regardless of the outcome, the combat-proven M4/M4A1 Carbine will remain in service for years to come. As part of its dual path strategy, the Army continues to move ahead with its M4 Product Improvement Program (PIP) that includes the conversion of M4s to M4A1s with heavy barrels and ambidextrous controls, the new standard for the Army carbine. Additionally, the Army plans to solicit industry for bolts, bolt carrier assemblies, and forward rail assemblies to determine if overall system performance can be improved.
“We will select a new carbine,” said Col. Doug Tamilio. “The question will be, do we execute the options on the contracts for how many we will buy and that depends upon the results of a business case analysis. We hope that we get the increases in accuracy and reliability to make the decision fairly easy.”
In his closing remarks, Lt. Gen. Phillips reminded the audience of what, ultimately, the key focus must be throughout the process.
“We must continually ask ourselves, what are we doing today for our Soldiers? What will we do tomorrow for our Soldiers to put the best capability into their hands?” said Lt. Gen. Phillips. “Because at the end of the day, that’s going to help save lives, allow Soldiers to complete their mission, and come home safely to their families and friends.”
Unfortunately, the Army will not get the best carbine possible, but instead the best that can be delivered in 90 days. Requirements differ from the M4 enough to require more development than possible in 90 days for some candidates. That, and the Army’s desire for familiarity and commonality, will drive solutions toward AR-type designs, that constrain industry. After waiting all this time for a real competition, it is a shame the Army has chosen an acquisition strategy that will very likely not field the very best possible individual weapon for Soldiers.
Which weapons manufacturers attended the 30 MAR briefing for the carbine competition?
What was the reasoning behind going to a heavy barrel for the M4A1 PIP?
If we are trying to reduce Soldier load, I don’t see how that would support Soldier load objectives.
I hope that Army leadership will decide that what we have is not an equipment problem. We have a training problem.
As much as I applaud the Army on looking for a better weapon system, I strongly believe we need to put it on hold for a bit while continuing with the M4 improvement program. As is stands, the new carbine would most likely be 5.56mm and, thus, not a true leap forward for the war fighter. I believe a better use of taxpayer funds would be to first develop an improved round, and THEN design a new weapon system for it. Will this take a few extra years? Yes. But, it will result in a leap ahead in terms of war fighting capability and make the huge investment more worthwhile.
Please, develop a Joint Improved Small Arms Munition with better range, accuracy, lighter weight, barrier penetration, and terminal ballistics… then give us an Improved Carbine.
@Mitch
Improvements to the M4 platform have been ongoing for some time. In fact, the Army has incorporated more than 60 engineering refinements into the M16/M4 family of weapons since they were first fielded. Today’s M4 Carbine is not your grandfather’s M16.
The Army recently introduced another significant upgrade to the overall weapon system with the fielding the new 5.56mm M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round. The new ammunition replaces the current M855 used by U.S. troops since the early 1980s.
The M855A1 represents a significant improvement in a 5.56mm bullet. The round dramatically improves hard target performance at longer distances, provides improved consistent performance against soft targets, and has greater effectiveness against all target types at longer ranges than the M855. The M855A1 ammunition also has improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash and a higher velocity than the M855. The M855A1 actually performs better than current M80 7.62mm ball ammunition against hard targets and delivers superior performance against soft targets as well.
@SFC Garcia
The Army certainly shares concerns about adding to the Soldier’s load, which is why PM Soldier Weapons has pursued multiple programs such as the titanium built M240L 7.62 mm medium machine gun and M26 12-guage shotgun that lighten the load by several pounds each.
Transitioning from the M4 to the M4A1 configuration that SOCOM has employed since 1994 does add about 7 ounces of weight, but it also adds significant capability. The heavier barrel of the M4A1 gives it a greater sustained rate of fire than the M4. The M4A1 also has a consistent trigger pull and a full automatic fire mode. The Army plans to outfit all M4A1s with ambidextrous fire controls to enhance ergonomics for left-handed operators.
@Gary
As to who will compete, that remains to be seen. The Army cannot provide the names of vendors who participated in the Army’s industry day in March as that information is competition sensitive. The final request for proposals is due out in the end of May. Vendors who wish to compete will then have 90 days to submit their bid samples and other required materials for the competition.
@John
Through its carbine competition, the Army is seeking out the best commercially available carbine that can meet Army requirements. In the acquisition community, this is referred to as “Commercial Off-The-Shelf” or COTS. The effort is not considered “developmental” whereby manufacturers are expected to build a new system from the ground up. This strategy best enables the Army to leverage the research and development resources of industry for the benefit of the Soldier and the American taxpayer. The weapon designs that ultimately compete in the competition are the result of years of industry research and testing.
Nothing is “wrong” with the M4. I think in times of tight budgets making improvements that enhance an effective platform while giving our Soldiers the best available product is a wise course of action. Everyone has a defined role and the weapons assigned fit that specific role. It is impossible to have a lightweight, compact, sniper rifle that doubles as a open bolt machine gun with a shotgun and laser guided hellcat missile system attachments (or maybe I’m on to something). I think the only thing missing in the arsenal would be a compact submachine gun in the order of a KAC PDW, H7K UMP, Kriss Super V, etc.
@ddawson
Agree with comments on the heavy barrel and ambi safe-semi-auto selector. My opinion differs on the 5.56, while the M855A1 is an improvement the capability would only be increased that much more if bore were increased to 6.5-7mm. Any improvement constricted to the 5.56 results in only an incremental improvement. There are current COTs cartridges in that size range that fit within the existing magazine and work with the current bolt head. Is there any progress on replacement of the gas impingement system with some form of piston system?
I saw an ARMS Room Management system that came out of Redstone Arsenal which was a pretty slick systems for arms room management. When can we get this system, it was the best i ever saw.