NATO Land Group 3 Close Combat Infantry Annual

NATO Land Group 3 Close Combat Infantry Annual Update For NDIA Joint Services Small Arms Conference 12 May 2004 Mr. Robert M. Pizzola US Army-ARDEC AMSRD-AAR-AIJ Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806 973 -724 -7908 Email: rpizzola@pica. army. mil

NATO and Partners for Peace Membership Update • Originally 16 nations at the time of Soviet collapse • Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic added = 19 • Recently – Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia = 26 • Still have Partner for Peace nations – Sweden is most active of these nations within LG 3

NATO Land Group #3 Infantry Weaponry Master Plan • • • Concept presented and outlined by US Land Group unanimously adopts US Concept Document expanded and completed by Sweden designated the overall lead nation Other nations assigned lead for sections. – Canada- Shoulder fired weaponry, hand grenades – UK- indirect fire (mortars, grenade launchers, etc) – Belgium- Infantry Combat Vehicle main gun – Germany- Actual combat vehicle interface – France- Sniper weaponry – US - MOUT and Non-lethal weaponry

More on Infantry Weaponry Master Plan • • Covers all materiel areas of LG 3 responsibility Represents the structure for all current and future work. Serves as the basis and justification for all work US initiatives under master plan: – Standardization of bursting munitions • Issue: Unlike bullets, may have to attempt to standardize munitions effects – Quite possibly, the next generation of point fire ammunition may not be amenable to standardization as has been the rule • To lighten system weight dramatically, ammo design must change dramatically

MOUT and Non-Lethal Weaponry • Last meeting was hosted by Italy in Rome – To observe the first public demonstration of the new Baretta constant kinetic energy shotgun • Completed work on Non-Lethal Weaponry in Rome • NATO Non-lethal Capability set is mostly defensive • Barriers to offensive NLW include: – Various chemical weapons treaties (no OC, etc) – National laws prohibiting area or “indiscriminate” fire – UK favors dedicated weaponry – These issues to be elevated for possible resolution • MOUT to continue developing prioritized requirements and prioritized deficiencies; 1 possibly 2 more meetings

Sub-Group 1 to NATO LG 3 NATO Standard Ammo • SG 1 is studying effects on ERTC and NARTC of bursting munitions; i. e. - what, how test? • Similarly studying programmable fuzes • 40 mm High Velocity STANAG and MOPI out for ratification – Highly intensified interest since international community observed performance in Southwest Asia • 40 mm Low Velocity documentation also in process • Controversy surrounding 30 mm x 173 round – Field de-linking and re-linking? Doubtful. • Possible standardization of Soviet bloc materiel being considered.

Personal Defense Weapon • • • NATO undertook a new PDW program The UK began testing; halted testing France resumed testing Two sets of test results generated Attempts to establish scoring criteria AFTER seeing test results failed. US asked by LG 3 to conduct an independent evaluation (SW, CA, SU, RO) - Results were CLOSE; nonetheless, a clear winner - US surveyed for instances of “hot” ammo swaps - No instances among full NATO members (SW-FI say Yea) - Seems there’s no need for std. ammo for “weapon of last resort” • Standardization of new PDW Ammo not recommended.