Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Will the F-88 Steyr be our last service rifle?
Volkodav    7/8/2010 5:45:08 AM
The F-88 in service today is quite different to the one that I carried in the mid 90's. Due to its modular design it is comparitively easy to upgrade and up date, with even a calibre (with in reason) change not being out of the question. Its bullpup layout lets it retain a full length (407 or 508mm) barrel, hence optimal performance from the 5.56mm round, while remaining as compact as an M-4 carbine. Add to this the fact that western armies are filtering many types of support weapons down to platoon and even section or fire team level meaning some service rifles are being replaced with Designated Marksman Rifles, Automatic Rifles, multi-shot grenade launchers etc and the LMG / SAW is also being suplemented or even replaced with ARs and GPMGs. Another factor is vehicle crews, weapon crews etc don't need assault rifles, a PDW, such as the HK MP7, FN P90, would do just fine, especially if backed up with a smattering of DMRs and ARs. All of this together suggests that we will need fewer service rifles in the future and that those rifles will be concentrated in the RAR and reserve battalions. As the F-88 can be effectivey and economically upgraded to the point that every component can be progressively replaced, what are the chances we will keep them indefinately?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
smitty237       7/8/2010 1:16:30 PM
To paraphrase our former President from the Great State of Arkansas (Clinton), it depends upon the definition of 'indefinitely.'  The AR-15 (M-16) series of rifles have been serving in the US military for going on fifty years now, and there is no replacement on the near horizon.  The military has been open to a possible replacement for decades, but thus far no new designs have offered any appreciable advantanges over the M-16, or at least not enough of an advantage to justify the many millions of dollars it would cost to completely replace the M-16. 
 
A couple of rifles have given it a run for its money though.  The US military seemed to be impressed the H&K G-11 during the Advanced Combat Rifle trials in the late 80's/early 90's, and the German seemed poised to adopt it to replace the G-3, but alas the G-11 became a casualty of the Cold War.  When Germany rather suddenly reunified a lot of discretionary funds dried up and the Germans were forced to abandon plans to adopt the G-11 (it was an expensive rifle that fired very expensive caseless ammo).  I think the G-11 will go down as one of the great "what could have beens" in gun history.  Both the OICW and SCAR rifles were also given serious consideration by the US military, but neither were officially adopted as replacements to the M-16.  The SCAR has found a home with some Special Ops operators, but I seriously doubt it will give the M-16 serious competition. 
 
The thing that has allowed the M-16 and the AUG/F88 rifles to survive as long as they have is their modular design and adaptability.  I really believe that we have reached the apex of cased ammo firing assault rifle design technology.  For a number of years they have been working on improving the ammunition (6.8mm, 6.5 Grendel, etc.), but none of these have caught on with military.  The M-16, AUG, G-36, SA-80, etc., series of rifles will probably be with us for a few more decades, but I'm sure there is something on the horizon.  I personally believe that the next revolution in weapons technology will have to do with the ammo.  The US military has been researching and testing a squad automatic weapon for several years that fires a new caseless cartridge, and I see small arms development going that direction.  The biggest challenge will be development of a caseless round that fires and performs effectively and reliably and doesn't cost a hundred bucks a round.  I doubt that they would bother to adapt the M-16 or AUG to fire caseless ammo, so you would almost definitely see a new weapons system.  I would also expect a lot of advanced gizmos attached to the rifle, particularly computerized weapon sights that will do damn near everything other than pull the trigger for you.  Stay tuned. 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/11/2010 5:52:40 AM
There seems to be a trend towards cascading crew served and specialist weapons down to company, platoon and even section level.  This makes sense as platoons and sections seem to be operating quite a way away from company and battalion support these days.
 
When you have a semi-auto DMR, grenade launcher, GPMG / AR at section or even fire team level and  light mortar(s), .338 or .50 cal sniper rifle and a couple of GPMGs with tripods at platoon level an M-16 / AUG / etc is perfectly good enough to fill the gaps within 300m. 
 
That said there could be an argument to adopt something like the MP7 to replace the remaining Steyrs but then again why spend the extra money unless you have to.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/11/2010 5:55:34 AM
When you have a semi-auto DMR, grenade launcher, GPMG / AR at section or even fire team level and  light mortar(s), .338 or .50 cal sniper rifle and a couple of GPMGs with tripods at platoon level an M-16 / AUG / etc is perfectly good enough to fill the gaps within 300m. 
 
I am not saying this is what the RAR has done or is even planing but rather that this is the direction things are heading with modern western armies and the ADF is a modern western army.
 
Quote    Reply

C2       7/11/2010 7:54:59 AM
I have it on good opinion that the ADF loves the f-88 and the older steyr versions it replaced, the scenario you describe seems to be more the trend for heavy infantry which is a doctrine that support regular forward manuevering infantry, but does not replace.

The only major change i see on the horizon is if the US Army changes it's standard cartridge (then we would follow), and in that situation we would likely use another variant of the Aug(f-88a1?)...  
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/11/2010 8:47:56 AM
Well the RAR is meant to be adopting a support section in each platoon on their way to becoming a medium force so we can expect to see an increase in support weapons in the TOE.
 
As for heavy infantry, are you referring to armoured / mech inf? 
 
Light Inf, as opposed to Australia's fairly unique Jungle Infantry (developed in WWII for the Pacific the returned to in the late 50s as part of the expansion of the RAR), tend to be on the heavy side for support weapons to compensate for the lack of vehicle mounted weapons and armoured support.  Our Jungle Infantry was disturbingly lightly equipped, relying on support from attached elements from other Corps.  The only issue was the other Corps weren't all that big and were never that well equipped themselves.
 
Interestingly DMRs, sniper rifles, mortars and AGLs seem to be proliferating in non infantry units in other armies.  They are outstanding force multipliers and can make the difference between a small unit holding out until help arrives and being over run.  My old shooting team captain was our transport sergeant and from memory a large number of the competetors at AASAM were non Infantry, so it is likely DMRs could be effectively employed in such a way.
 
Quote    Reply

C2       7/11/2010 9:54:30 AM
By heavy infantry I wasn't even thinking of the Australian army, more the marine 'esq addon units ie the 2 man javelin team or the 2 man stinger team that are added to squads, not to mention the 4 man support team 4 man fire team squad structure. In these scenarios i could imagine smaller weapons being adopted by the munition carrying person... but our current force structure doesn't allow for that.

By the way those Jungle units have some of the best combat records i have ever read about, so i guess the 'what works' attitude was being adopted at the for better or worse (im guessing worse...)...

    
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/11/2010 10:12:07 AM
There is an argument underway that the USMC should convert their Rifle Battalions into Infantry Battalions.  This didn't make much sense to me until I realised most of their support weapons are concentrated in support units within the regimental structure with the battalions being composed almost purely of riflemen and even the (SAW) being seen as too heavy and too specialised to be used as a section weapon.
 
 
Quote    Reply

C2    Alas your link doesn't work on account of my not having a membership...   7/11/2010 11:53:14 AM
But I'll take your word for it, in some ways it's probably a good idea, but my thinking is if they haven't lost a battle so far why change the winning formula...  but alas true full spectrum  modern warfare may look on them unforgivingly.

The Marines are proud of their 'Everyones a rifleman' heritage, and I don't think that training mentality will change in a hurry, however our Army is not the Marines and never will be, most of our deployed units are essentially mechanized in nature and the use of heavy weapons by said units is quite common from the military articles and information I've read. 

     
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       7/12/2010 3:40:40 AM

... The M-16, AUG, G-36, SA-80, etc., series of rifles will probably be with us for a few more decades, ...

The SA80 will probably be the first to go from that lot The ones in service now are upgrades, production ended many years ago.
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       7/12/2010 3:47:15 AM

The only major change i see on the horizon is if the US Army changes it's standard cartridge (then we would follow), and in that situation we would likely use another variant of the Aug(f-88a1?)...  

USMC is introducing a new 5.56mm bullet.
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics