Currently, most US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan carry M4s, a smaller version of the M16 that retains little of the most noticeable visual cues of its bigger predecessor beyond the familiar silhouette of the front sight. But beyond the folding butt stock and the Picatinny rail system that now secures a variety of sights on the top (in place of the carrying handle; see this Wikipedia article) and attachments around the barrel, the current main weapon of US forces remains internally almost identical to the Vietnam-era M16. Most importantly, this includes the gas operating system that some claim leads to operating failures (if not cleaned appropriately or if operated in harsh environments). Now, forty years after it first saw combat in Vietnam, it looks like the M16 family of weapons will join other icons of the US military, such as the Willys Jeep of World War II and the Huey helicopter of Vietnam fame, as images of a bygone era.
[In a February news release about the Army's fiscal budget request for 2009, it was noted that the service would procure an additional 88,964 M4 carbines with selected optics for a cost of $151 million -- that averages out to $1697 per weapon]
A few years ago, the Army almost replaced the M16/M4 with a newer rifle, the XM8, but in what appeared to be a last minuted bureaucratic backlash, the adoption of the new weapon system was abandoned (see this previous post, where we detail the history of the M16/M4 and discuss possible replacements). Instead, as the Iraq war continued, and US soldiers increasingly operated out of he confines of Humvees and in restricted urban environments, the Army approved the near whole scale migration from the longer M16 to its shorter variant, the M4 carbine.
Now, according to a recent article in the Army Times, it looks like the US Army is ready to reopen the official debate on its main infantry weapon. What is particularly interesting is that not only is the Army open to the idea of an enhanced or entirely new rifle system, it is also considering a change in caliber (the diameter of the bullet used in a weapon). That would address the other long-standing criticism of the M16/M4, that its 5.56mm bullet, though moving at extremely high speeds, lacks the critical "stopping power" of larger caliber bullets. Put simply, the current bullet is accused of not having enough size and mass to knock an enemy down with a single shot.
No rifle is an island
But changing the main rifle of the US Army (and, as a result, probably all of the main US forces) has a massive impact. Top concerns include:
- Soldier familiarity and expertise with the new weapon.
- Spare parts for the new rifle/carbine.
- Enough bullets if the caliber changes.
These are major hurdles to overcome as the critical issue will be, assuming a new system is adequately tested, how will the transition occur? Moving from the M16 to the M4 meant very little change for soldiers -- the system basically works the same. The parts are largely the same, too. And critically, the magazine and ammunition are identical. But a new rifle/carbine will introduce a training and logistically nightmare, perhaps compounded by an ammunition change. The ammunition change also has other massive implications, since US allies (e.g., NATO members) have all standardized on 5.56mm rounds for rifles. So, actually making a change comes down to:
- Is there a better weapon system available?
- If so, is the new system better enough -- not just a little bit better -- to make the change worthwhile given the cost, logistics, and training issues involved?
- If a new caliber makes sense, how will the US convince NATO and other Allies of the need to change?
Changing something so important and with such a major impact as the main US military rifle can't happen overnight. From the article, it appears that it will take at least a year to even kick off the competition:
If all goes as planned, the Army will release a request for proposals late next summer, formally inviting weapons makers to submit plans and prototype weapons for testing, said Maj. Tom Henthorn, small-arms branch chief for Soldier Requirements Division at Fort Benning, Ga.
Either way, it certainly makes sense for the Army to consider updating its aging rifle/carbine system. The US soldier deserves the best rifle/carbine the US can procure. But like any transition, there is little room for failure. The short-lived effort to move to the M-14 is an example of choosing the wrong weapon for the times. The initial disaster of the M16 in Vietnam illustrates how changes in the design and ammunition and training can cost lives.
Whatever the weapon chosen, the process needs to be well thought out and smooth in order to ensure the safety of the US soldier. And unlike the debacle with body armor during the early phase of the Iraq conflict, saying we are sorry to the soldier, marine, airman, and sailor in the line of fire is not acceptable anymore. However, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Department of Defense (DoD) procurement doesn't give one confidence:
Systemic problems both at the strategic and at the program level underlie cost growth and schedule delays. At the strategic level, DOD’s processes for identifying warfighter needs, allocating resources, and developing and procuring weapon systems -- which together define DOD’s overall weapon system investment strategy -- are fragmented and broken.
...
DOD investment decisions cannot continue to be dictated by the military services who propose programs that overpromise capabilities and underestimate costs to capture the funding needed to start and sustain development programs. To better ensure warfighter capabilities are delivered when needed and as promised, incentives must encourage a disciplined, knowledge-based approach, and a true partnership with shared goals must be developed among the department, the military services, the Congress, and the defense industry.
Let's hope that the Army and the DoD manage to learn from past mistakes and get the job of selecting a new rifle/carbine right, do it as quick as possible, and complete the effort within a reasonable budget.