The idea is that they have already a updated round for the Individual rifle with the 6.5x39 and having the 6x49 for the PKM once again would have the same log train issues. You have to deal with the whole lot. Recalibrate the sights in vehicles for instance. Outright buy new sights for the SVD/SVS.
They will be upgrading the sights of the SVD anyway... and 6.5 x 39mm? Since when has the Russians decided to adopt a foreign cartridge in the form of the Grendel?
There is no need... out to about 300-400m the 5.45mm is fine... at greater distances use 6x49mm and a weapon with the right optics for the job.
The idea is that those costs can't be justified.
Of course they can... you get better performance for lower material costs... the bullet the 6x49mm round fires is smaller and lighter than the 7.62 x 54mm and it uses less propellent per round. the ammo is lighter so the soldier can carry less weight or more ammo for the same weight.
The improved performance and accuracy should make machine guns and sniper rifles more effective.
It's too big and will replace weapons that still fulfll their duties quite nicely.
If that were a good reason then why replace AK-74s with AEKs and AK12s? Just slap rails on the existing rifles and there is no need for new weapons...
The Implications as I said is that you'd need to get rid of a good chunk of the sotcks (especially the SVD's).
SVDs don't have secret codes on them... I am sure Syria and Iraq would be happy to buy up large numbers of these weapons, along with a good supply of ammo too.
New weapons like the SV-98 and VS-121 could easily be rebarrelled and recalibrated.
The new thermal scopes we have seen details of have ballistic computers and laser range finders so just adding the ballistics of the new round should mean simply selecting the right option in the menu, and firing a zeroing shot and you are good to go.
Most PKs didn't have optics... all SVDs already in 7.62 calibre can keep their optics when they are sold. AFAIK most Russian and Soviet night vision optics had mechanical compensators so when used on different weapons you used a different setting... so the night vision optic could be used on AK-74, AKM, SVD, RPK, RPK-74, PKM, and even RPG-7 with the different attachments for the different projectile trajectories. This new calibre just means adding a new attachment.
Adding one more calibre is also less than optimal for the current AF leadership. Well it doesn't need to happen all either so far. Russia is evaluating the perfomance of the current ammunition in Ukraine. It will be a way to validate the need for the new ammunition.
Well if this new round is all it is cracked up to be it might end up like the SKS/AK... where the AK could do all that an SKS could do, but the SKS was semi auto only and had a limited mag capacity, plus a fixed mag so in the end they just used AK-47s as they were cheaper to make.
If this round is a good combination of recoil and performance then perhaps in time it could replace the 5.45mm in service, but for now it is fine.
Just like the AEK/AK 12 debate, that's simply not true. Because the new MG's, SVD's etc will have to be "modernized". It's like we never had the AK-12/AEK discussion. You're speaking about simple, logical changes with an institution whose whole purpose is to make life miserable to innovators. Add to that design bureau wars and yay...success.
The new weapons they will be introducing are supposed to be modular multi calibre weapons.
The PK and PKP in existing stocks would need a replacement barrel for the smaller calibre, a new bolt face for the different round, and a new leaf iron sight for the different trajectory and a new belt feed.
the mechanism doesn't need to be changed on existing weapons.... dragging the round out the back of the belt and then pushing it forward into the chamber is fine even though it could be replaced by a push straight from the belt into the chamber with the new cartridge design. Using the existing mechanism would be simpler and cheaper, and might add to reliability... it has been said that pulling the round back and then ramming it forward increases reliability by shaking off any dirt the ammo belt might have picked up and shaking it off before it gets to the chamber.
I am sure the MIC will be happy enough with the prospect of producing all the MGs needed to replace every vehicle mounted MG... I suspect in the newer model armoured vehicles the trajectory is calculated via ballistic computer anyway so just new software will be needed to recalibrate the sights... the backup optic sights can simply be recalibrated too.
Now is the best time to make the change as all new vehicles will be entering service soon and new small arms too.
I don't think you understand what that means. They're already cheap since the round we're talking about is a 30 year old design, but the need of it coupled with the ground up modernization cost and hassle is really in discussion. It was deemed unnecessary back in a time when the Armed Forces could have anything, how do you think the round will fare today with a tighter oversight and generally a bigger competition among services for cash?
My information says it was killed because it was developed into the 1990s when there was no cash and no prospect of cash to do it. Now enormous amounts of money are being spent on new armoured vehicles and new small arms... now is the ideal time to make the change.
The more so when you look at the details about the AK12, with the smaller model in assault rifle calibres, and the larger version being described as being in 7.62 x 51mm and no mention of a 7.62 x 54mm version... that suggests to me either they are changing to 6 x 49mm or 7.62 x 51mm... and I really don't see them taking a step backward to introduce such an inferior round.
Yet they can use the 4.7 colibri-round and field it's weapon of choice without much cost problems. Although the MP-7 cost was almost as important as the G11.
That is case in point... the 4.6 x 30mm round for the MP-7 was put forward as the new personal defence weapon calibre for NATO in competition to the 5.7x28mm round used in weapons like the P90, but lost. The PDW was a new weapon category for NATO to replace SMG with a round with low recoil that will reliably penetrate body armour. The 5.7mm round was found to be the superior option, but this was rejected by the Germans who preferred their own cartridge so neither round has been accepted AFAIK. Note the goal was to find a round to replace the 9 x 19mm which has not happened...
So ammunition isn't really that easy.
I dont think you can compare this with that as the caseless round had rather more issues that were not totally solved and was rather a break from traditional ammo.
the 6x49mm is just a different diameter bullet in a new case shape... they will likely be able to make it in the same lines that make the current ammo.
The US could throw billions in and expect return (or not), that's not the case for Germany's H&K that would have to compete for that in order to have a return on investment. They were ready when the gun wasn't needed. Same for the LSAT it is being tested while the US need for such tools is being put again on the back burner.
the real problem for Germany was that the reintegration of East and west germany was costing them a fortune, while the perceived threat from the Soviet Union was gone so it was not possible to justify replacing G3 rifles with the G11... so they ended up having to develop the g36.... which was not free, and then introduce 556 production which was not free either.[/quote]