Small arms fire control systems (SA-FCSs) are fast becoming an area of great interest in the infantry weapons sector. Some users see SA-FCSs as an important part of next-generation small arms, while others are taking a more nuanced approach as to how they might employ SA-FCSs across their small arms inventory.
The path towards SA-FCSs begins with the evolution of small arms in the post-1945 era. It had become apparent that the era of the bolt action battle rifle was coming to an end and that the primary small arms calibres were overpowered. A study by the US Army Operational Research Organization (ORO) determined that 80% of effective rifle and machine gun engagements took place at less than 200 yards (183 m, while 90% of engagements took place at less than 300 yards (275 m). This provided the evidence to demonstrate that the German Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44) utilising the intermediate 7.92 × 33 mm Kurz round, effectively the first assault rifle system to see combat in significant numbers, was the way forward.
The former Soviet Army evaluated these German ammunition and weapon developments and moved forward with its own next generation small arms solution. The first step was the development of the 7.62 × 39 mm intermediate round, followed by the weapons to utilise the round – notably the SKS carbine and later the RPD machine gun (Ruchnoy Pulemyot Degtyaryova; ENG: the Degtyaryov light machine gun). In current parlance, the RPD would be classified as a squad automatic weapon (SAW). In the late 1940s, they would go on to introduce a definitive assault rifle design with the AK-47. At the end of the 1950s, the Soviet Army would add to its squad-level weapons mix with the introduction of the Dragunov SVD (Snayperskaya Vintovka Dragunova; ENG Dragunov Sniper Rifle). The SVD could be considered as one of the earliest manifestations of what we would now call a designated marksman rifle (DMR). The weapon used the full power 7.62 × 54 mmR round (first introduced in 1891), although sniper-grade ammunition was usually issued, with the SVD engaging targets out to between 600 and 800 m and more often beyond. It should be noted that the 7.62 × 54 mmR round was also featured in Soviet machine guns, these would be classified as medium machine guns (MMGs) or general-purpose machine guns (GPMGs) today.
The Western path
In contrast to what was happening with Soviet small arms, NATO would choose a different path. In Britain, the EM-2 was developed as a future rifle; this was a true assault rifle utilising a 7 × 43 mm intermediate round – the weapon also had an optic. In Belgium, FN would adopt the 7 × 43 mm round for its FAL assault rifle. At this time the emphasis was on ammunition standardisation amongst the NATO nations, which would inevitably mean the wishes of the US Army would carry great weight. The US was against an intermediate round, preferring instead an MMG round, hence the 7.62 × 51 mm round being standardised across NATO.
After imposing a full power round on NATO, the early 1960s saw the US bringing into service the M16, an assault rifle that used the 5.56 × 45 mm M193 intermediate round. Then in the late 1970s, FN developed the SS109 5.56 × 45 mm round which became the NATO standard round (STANAG 4172) in October 1980. This was followed by a transition to 5.56 × 45 mm assault rifles across the NATO countries and eventually, much of the world. The small arms scene now seemed to follow a predictable path, at least in the majority of the NATO nations. At the squad level, there is a 5.56 × 45 mm assault rifle such as the M4 and a squad automatic weapon (SAW) in the same calibre, such as the M249 or Minimi. Moving up the scale, are GPMGs such as the MAG/M240 in 7.62 × 51mm and a heavy machine gun (HMG), typically the M2HB in 12.7 × 99 mm (.50 BMG). It should also be noted that the Soviet Army had later gone for a reduced calibre assault rifle round in the form of the 5.45 × 39 mm for the AK-74 series.
The other important addition to the Western small arms mix was the MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail, which opened the way to adding a cornucopia of systems to a weapon, obviously at the cost of increased weight. These systems include: optics, magnifiers, close quarter battle sights, infrared target pointers, infrared sights, aiming lasers, illuminators, holographic weapon sights, thermal sights and gun lights; all have delivered improved accuracy in combat conditions.
The small arms scene was set across the majority of Western ground forces, most of which were generally satisfied with their weapons and with the engagement possibilities they offered. Then the operational environment changed, with the accepted small arms wisdom starting to be called into question. The catalyst for this was experience gained from the post-2000 asymmetric conflicts, principally Afghanistan. Standard 5.56 × 45 mm squad weapons were out-ranged by the Taliban, who often employed SVD 7.62 × 54 mm R DMRs. The response was twofold: first, develop and bring into service higher performance and extended range 5.56 mm rounds; and, second, deploy 7.62 × 51 mm DMR systems to give the infantry the ability to engage hostile targets at extended ranges.
To an extent, these measures had some success, with the DMR in particular becoming a particularly useful asset. At this point, the situation changed again, when the better resourced and equipped Taliban groupings began deploying with body armour, further increasing the difficulty in small arms engagements. This led to further squad-level weapons development, with the challenge now being to engage and defeat protected targets at extended ranges, ideally at ranges greater than threat weapons could reach. The idea was to dominate the small arms battle environment.
Meeting the challenge
The US Army was quick to embrace the challenge of being dominant in terms of small arms capabilities. In 2017, they came up with the Interim Combat Service Rifle (ICSR) to fill a potential gap in the capability of ground forces and infantry to penetrate body armour using existing ammunition. The ICSR would use the 7.62 × 51 mm M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) to engage and defeat protected and unprotected threats. A few months later in 2017, the programme was cancelled in favour of the Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) programme. Under NGSW, the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle (NGSW-R) would replace the M4/M4A1 carbine and the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Automatic Rifle (NGSW-AR) would replace the M249 SAW.
In 2022, SIG Sauer won the NGSW programme, with the NGSW-R element met by the M7 and the NGSW-AR met by the M250; both weapons will utilise the 6.8 × 51 mm Common Cartridge family developed by SIG Sauer. The new 6.8 × 51 mm round will enable targets equipped with body armour to be defeated, the downside though is that the heavier weight of the new rounds means the individual soldier will carry fewer, but more lethal rounds. To take advantage of the performance of these new rounds and to provide the US Army with long-range dominance it seeks, requires a higher level of accuracy than current weapons. To achieve this, the M7/M250 are both equipped with an SA-FCS acquired under the Next Generation Squad Weapons – Fire Control (NGSW-FC) requirement. This requirement was won by Vortex Optics with the XM157 system.
The XM157 integrates a variable magnification optic (1-8x), back-up etched reticle, laser rangefinder (LRF), ballistic calculator, atmospheric sensor suite, compass, intra-soldier wireless, visible and infrared aiming lasers and a digital display overlay. The M7/M250 are currently in the testing phase with reports thus far on the accurate long-range engagement capability of these weapons largely positive. Clearly if you want to avoid close combat situations, engage at range, with high accuracy and minimum ammunition expenditure, an FCS is the way to go. It can be anticipated that any potential successor to the M240 in the US Army MMG application will also feature something like the XM157.
In principle, the M7/M250, in conjunction with the XM157, will meet the US Army requirement to replace the M4/M249, but the new weapons are still in testing and inevitably some negative reports have surfaced. At this stage it is too early to determine how good or how bad these weapons are, but should the programme continue as planned, the weapons, the 6.8 × 51 mm round, and the XM157 SA-FCS will set the standard across NATO for squad weapons.
A different direction
What the US is attempting with its new family of squad weapons is very exciting, one thing it has done is to put the issue of the SA-FCS at the top of the agenda in terms of an important, perhaps even essential, capability to acquire. Inevitably, what the US does is incredibly influential in terms of NATO, but in the small arms sector some key NATO players such as France and Germany have committed to new weapons in the 5.56 × 45 mm calibre and at this point neither has moved towards a true SA-FCS solution.
One significant NATO player yet to decide on its future assault rifle is the UK. The programme to replace the current L85 weapon is known as Project Grayburn. The timeline is that the L85 will go out of service in 2030, and the search for a replacement is currently in the ‘concept’ phase, which will run into 2026. After an ‘assessment’ phase, a decision on the new weapon could be made in late 2026 or early 2027. In total, between 150,000 and 180,000 Grayburn weapons are to be acquired and the weapon has an anticipated service life of some 30 years.
One question that needs to be answered is what calibre will Grayburn commit to? Commonality with other NATO members is a factor, so 5.56 × 45 mm and 7.62 × 51 mm immediately come under consideration. However, the objective is to have a system that provides increased range and can penetrate current and future body armour solutions. Calibres also being discussed include 6.5 mm Creedmoor (6.5 × 48 mm) as used on the British L129A2 DMR as adopted by the Royal Marines, 6.8 mm Remington SPC (6.8 × 43 mm), 6.5 mm Grendel (6.5 × 38 mm) and even .300 AAC Blackout (7.62 × 35 mm). Inevitably the US 6.8 × 51 mm family of rounds is being seriously considered, with the high velocity round to defeat body armour, the general purpose round, and the training round all having interesting attributes.
The fact that the US Army opted for a new weapon, a new round and an FCS is having an impact on the Grayburn process. Apparently, they really want to see if the M7/M250 concept can deliver a workable small arms system. A key factor in Grayburn is that they are looking for a future-proof system, one that can accommodate technology insertion to evolve. Hence there are concerns about the M7/M250 FCS, the technology currently used and its evolutionary ability. Unlike the US Army, the British Army is resource constrained – they need to maximise capability with reduced risk and less financial impact. Fascinating though the US XM157 SA-FCS is, there is a feeling that British requirements could be met via a different and potentially more affordable solution and one with the potential to evolve over the service life of the weapon.
Possible solutions
In the context of Project Grayburn, one question comes to mind: does every weapon need to be equipped with a high-value/high-sophistication SA-FCS? The answer to this question would appear to be no! A more interesting solution might be to have a range of options across the infantry section/squad and platoon. These options could include a range of optics, depending on the role of the individual soldier, with the SA-FCS being issued to more specialised and experienced soldiers. Another factor to be considered is the fact that we are increasingly living in an era where soldier systems are the norm, therefore data can be shared between individual soldiers. Meaning that once the target is detected, its location can be shared amongst the section members, with the SA-FCS providing the necessary targeting solutions for all concerned.
There are plenty of solutions that potentially could be integrated to deliver an authentic SA-FCS. On the other hand, one manufacturer has already proposed a SA-FCS solution that could be applicable to Grayburn. Raytheon ELCAN, already a supplier to the British Army and other NATO nations, have come up with a flexible solution that meets SA-FCS requirements.
What ELCAN suggests is a mixed approach, the Specter DR 1-4x dual-role optic – a rugged and reliable optic – issued to those equipped with a standard assault rifle. The Specter VP, a 1-8x optic with variable magnification that provides a highly capable observation and target identification capability, would be utilised by the section leader and section 2IC. Both optics are easily attached to standard infantry weapons via the Picatinny rail. Then at the top of the ELCAN SA-FCS solution comes the Digital Fire Control Sight (DFCS), with one likely option being that the DFCS would be used by soldiers with specialised skill sets such as designated marksman or machine gunner. The DFCS would allow them to provide accurate target identification and location, with interconnectivity across the section allowing the section leader to designate priority targets for engagement.
The core of the DFCS system is a 1-8x low power variable optic (LPVO), which can be mounted on any weapon with a Picatinny rail. The optic has a standard etched reticle, meaning that it could also act as a standalone day optic. However, the DFCS adds a digital reticle, an onboard ballistic computer and a laser rangefinder. The system is compatible with multiple weapons and the ballistic computer can store ballistic profiles for 15 different weapon and ammunition types.
Marksmanship basics must still be taught, but what an SA-FCS, such as the DFCS, provides is the ability for the shooter to enhance performance in combat conditions and accurately engage targets at range. What the DFCS does is take into account all the necessary ballistic variables and real-time environmental conditions to allow the soldier to easily and accurately deliver first round impacts. The DFCS has a simple user interface and settings can even be customised to meet user requirements. Another important feature of the DFCS is that it has evolutionary potential, being able to support technology insertion to increase performance.
The ability to successfully engage and neutralise targets at range with first-round impacts presents a major challenge to standard infantry weapons and ammunition, particularly since many of these targets will be equipped with body armour. Achieving the desired level of accuracy at long range and in intense combat conditions would require an SA-FCS taken into service with both current and future small arms.
David Saw
