The NGSW: Separate the judgement of the current iteration of the program from whether or not there should be a program. Two things can be true at the same time.
100%. Given the Army’s track record of not having ever RFP’d, down-selected, and managed a successful service rifle program since the 1930s with the Garand, I think we should seriously consider removing or relocating small arms design, selection, and program management from the big pickle Army.
I and many others have been advocating for an Intermediate Cartridge, but I think the best place for that is to displace and eventually replace 7.62 NATO, mainly for size/performance and logistics considerations. This would increase the number of total round count for any dismounted or mounted/dismounted units, without sacrificing hit probability or relevant effects on-target.
We could keep 5.56 or replace it with something even smaller with better performance for the majority of the Combat Arms, Combat Support, and Support soldiers who currently draw an M4, or use the latest case technology to bring the barrel length down even shorter to make weapons more compact for a lot of people who simply will never fire their weapon at partial exposures outside of 200m anyway.
If we look at all the successful small arms programs since Vietnam, they have all really been embraced or pioneered by SOF elements who have freedom to test and select viable small arms, without as much interference from bureaucrats and ignoramuses who never were 11Bs or 0311s.
The organization who has influenced small arms with more relevant and useful systems is JSOC, without a doubt. USAF was instrumental in getting the AR-15 adopted and type-classified by the Pentagon, despite the Army in the early 1960s. But when we look at every ancillary system, rails, optics, LAMs, signature reduction, and better Man-Machine Interface, it was all pioneered in JSOC. Then it tricked down to Ranger Regiment, then SF, then Airborne/Airmobile/Light units. Mech were some of the last to see M4s, RAS, CCOs, PAQ-4Cs, PEQ-2s, PEQ-15s, ACOGs, etc.
There should be a group of retired JSOC guys who do Combat Development for big pickle Army. PEO, Army Ordnance, and big office US Army programs have proven impotent and misdirected when it comes to small arms. They screw up load-bearing gear and individual kit as well, on purpose. That’s their words, not mine. “We use an 85% solution because we need engineering capacity down the road, and don’t want to lose that."
JSOC working with AMU and industry partners has already cranked-out vastly-superior products.