L3Harris Technologies Next Generation Squad Fire Control Solution

3
433

Remember this? It’s supposed to solve all of the Army’s problems along with the new miracle round. Next Gen, Overmatch, Warfighter blah blah blah blah blah. You know the rest. I guess they couldn’t figure out a way to make it even bigger.

LONDONDERRY, N.H. — L3Harris Technologies (NYSE:LHX) has delivered 115 production prototype systems and conducted training for the Next Generation Squad Weapon Fire Control (NGSW-FC) solution to the U.S. Army.

The Army will use the prototype systems for test, evaluation and soldier touchpoints prior to down selecting one company for a program production contract award later this year. The solution provides an integrated approach to augmented aiming by combining range-finding capability, ballistic computation and environmental sensors that increase the accuracy while decreasing the time to engage a threat.

“The L3Harris Next Generation Squad Weapon – Fire Control system will enable soldiers to better detect, identify and engage threats at greater distances, as well as enhance situational awareness on the battlefield,” said Lynn Bollengier, President, Integrated Vision Solutions, L3Harris. “Our delivery of the production prototype systems is an example of L3Harris’ commitment to providing advanced technology to our customers.”

The company has teamed with Leupold & Stevens to integrate their superior optical assemblies and high volume, domestic manufacturing capabilities. This ensures the system meets the high quality and capacity requirements set forth by the Army to field this technology alongside the Next Generation Squad Weapons program.

3 COMMENTS

  1. I don’t know why you guys are so down on this stuff. The AR platform is very capable out to 500 yards, but precious few of the guys behind them are. If we can throw these on top of rifles and make every cook and file clerk with an AR a threat out to 500? That’s a big deal.

    Sure, it’ll be big and heavy and use batteries, and the cost of it will keep the Beltway bandits in business for another 5 years, but it seems to me like it represents a real improvement in capabilities for the average soldier.

  2. You would be better off spending the money on training, and then actually doing something systemic to encourage better marksmanship–Like, y’know, bring back proficiency pay like they did during the interwar years. And, make it more than a token amount.

    Nine-tenths of what’s wrong with small arms marksmanship and skill-at-arms is due to two things: Shitty training, and extremely unrealistic qual standards.

    It’s particularly bad with the crew-served, TBH. The MG is still evaluated with a range and qualification scenario that is static and entirely defensive in nature. The system, inclusive of the leadership, gunner, and crew is what needs to be evaluated, and in a dynamic, moving environment providing ample opportunity for the leadership/gun crews to identify and bring under fire appropriately observed targets in non-standardized terrain.

    I, for one, would spend the money to do away with the static ranges. If there’s enough use of the range such that the damn target pits are all well-known and easily observed due to the splash effect on surrounding vegetation and soil? Time to move the damn targets and reconfigure the range, folks. Spend the money.

    I think we do all of this crap wrong, to begin with. What they should be doing, instead of these static ranges all in a row out around the friggin’ cantonment area is take the troops out into the training area with unit sets of targets, set up the ranges according to realistic standards like they’re gonna see in combat, and then evaluate them that way. Nobody above junior enlisted ought to be wearing a weapons qualification badge, either–Leadership should have separate evaluations for qualification using their unit effectively, in terms of directing fires. A leader ought to be able to qualify as an expert on their individual weapon, and be able to effectively train marksmanship merely as a prerequisite to even being in the position they’re in.

    99.99% of the real problems we have with the whole small arms arena are not being addressed by NGSW, and won’t be. It’s all training and the doctrine–You don’t fix that by buying new gadgets, not when the guys using them are still going to have the same-old, same-old problems acquiring and positively identifying targets.

    It’s my considered professional opinion that most of what we need to do, and where the majority of the low-hanging fruit in terms of improving things would be in improving acquisition and identification, then the basics of training the troops to shoot in realistic and effective evaluation scenarios. Most of what we do now is lock-step BS that bears little relation to reality, which will bite us in the ass come the day we actually find ourselves in a real fight with peer-equivalent enemies.

    • Your thoughts on these topics are always appreciated, Kirk.

      I guess I don’t see how .mil couldn’t pursue a both/and approach to this stuff. Better marksmanship training (including, as you point out, a broader definition of marksmanship than just the ability to put a hole in a known target at a known distance) and better command and better small-unit and large-unit tactics would all fit nicely with some better hardware, wouldn’t they?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here