MARINES PERFORM ‘ARDUOUS’ EVALUATION OF NEW GRENADE LAUNCHER

The Marine Corps plans to introduce a new weapon intended to enhance the lethality of infantry Marines on the battlefield.

The M320A1 is a grenade launcher that can be employed as a stand-alone weapon or mounted onto another, such as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. Scheduled to be fielded in fiscal year 2020, the system will give fleet Marines the ability to engage with enemies near and far, day or night.

“The M320A1 will provide good range and accuracy, making the infantry squad more lethal,” said Lt. Col. Tim Hough, program manager for Infantry Weapons in Marine Corps Systems Command’s Ground Combat Element Systems.

The functionality of the M320A1 makes it unique, said Hough. Its ability to be used as a stand-alone or in conjunction with a firearm should help warfighters combat enemy forces. The weapon will replace the M203 grenade launcher, currently employed by Marines.

“The mounted version of the M320A1 is a capability we’re currently working on so that Marines have that option should they want it,” added Hough.

Before the Marine Air-Ground Task Force receives the M320A1, the Corps must draft technical documents for the weapon. These publications provide Marines with further information about the system.

In early March, Ground Combat Elements Systems collaborated with fleet maintenance Marines and logisticians from Albany, Georgia, conducting various analyses to determine provisioning, sustainment and new equipment training requirements for the system.

The first evaluation was a Level of Repair Analysis, or LORA. A LORA determines when a system component will be replaced, repaired or discarded. This process provides information for helping operational forces quickly fix the weapon should it break.

The LORA establishes the tools required to perform a task, test equipment needed to fix the product and the facilities to house the operation.

“It’s important to do the LORA now in a deliberate fashion so that we don’t do our work in front of the customer,” explained Hough. “And it ensures the system they get is ready to go, helping them understand the maintenance that must be done.”

The second evaluation was a Job Training Analysis, which provides the operational forces with a training package that instructs them on proper use of the system to efficiently engage adversaries on the battlefield.

“This process helps us ensure this weapon is both sustainable and maintainable at the operator and Marine Corps-wide level,” said Capt. Nick Berger, project officer in Infantry Weapons at MCSC. “It sets conditions for us to field the weapon.”

Analyses supports sustainability

Sustainability is a key factor in any systems acquisition process. The goal of the LORA and Job Training Analysis is to ensure the operator and maintenance technical publications of a system are accurate, which reduces operational ambivalence and improves the grenade launcher’s sustainability.

The LORA is an ongoing process that continues throughout the lifecycle of the M320A1 to establish sustainability, said Hough. After fielding the M320A1, the Corps will monitor the system to ensure it is functioning properly.

During this time, the program office will make any adjustments and updates necessary.

“We’re looking to have the new equipment training and fielding complete prior to fourth quarter of FY19 to ensure they can be used and maintained properly once they hit the fleet,” said Berger.

The analyses, which occurred over the course of a week, were no easy task.

“This was an extensive and arduous process,” explained Hough. “We scheduled three days for the LORA—all day—so you’re looking at about 24 hours of work for the LORA. And that doesn’t include reviews, briefs and refinements to the package.”

However, at the end of the week, Hough expressed gratitude for all parties involved in the M320A1 analyses, which he called a success. He said the tasks could not have been completed without the help of several key individuals.

“I will tell you what’s noteworthy is working with our contract support, the outside agencies and the deliberate efforts by our team—specifically Capt. Nick Berger and Steve Fetherolf, who is a logistician,” said Hough. “Those two have made a significant effort to get this together and move forward.”

Berger also expressed pride about the accomplishments of the analyses.

“This week has been a success,” he said. “We got the system in Marines’ hands, worked out the kinks and began to understand how we’re going to use this moving forward.”

Sgt Grit wants to hear from you! Leave your comments below or Submit your own Story !

11 thoughts on “MARINES PERFORM ‘ARDUOUS’ EVALUATION OF NEW GRENADE LAUNCHER”

  1. Interesting. That is the first time I heard of the Marine Corps developing the LORA. Usually the Manufacturer of the weapon system develops the Technical Manuals during the design of the system. I worked for Lockheed Martin, developing the M270A1 and Himars Rocket Launch systems. We needed to have validated Technical Manuals ready months before the systems were delivered to the Military Customers to start fielding.

    1. Also the “Level of Repair Analysis (LORA)” is a computerized system used to quantify the costs of repairing the system components at different maintenance levels (Organizational, Intermediate, Military Depot or Manufacturer). The LORA will tell where to perform repair for any component and perform a sensitivity analysis on how the decision would change if there are variations in Reliability, unit cost, Support Equipment cost and other data items. The LORA is used by the Manufacturing firm and delivered to the Customer for their review during the System development phase. The database used to develop the Technical Manuals is the Logistics Support Analysis Record (LSAR) database, or in some companies the Maintenance Task Analysis.. The Manufacturer develops that database during the Design phase, so the designers will know if they have to re-design a system to allow ease of field maintenance.

  2. I’m just a grunt/comm. I will not argue with the engineers above. I want to know if the USMC will get credit for it regardless of who makes it and writes about it. OR will it be taken by the US Dept. of Squids? What ever happened to the idea of the Dept. of the Marine Corps?!

  3. THE OLD M-79 GRENADE LAUNCHER WASN’T BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO WHY DID THEY REPLACE IT…??? THEN THEY MADE THE M-203 GRENADE LAUNCHER FOR MOUNTING UNDER THE M-16 FRAME… NOW WE ARE BACK FULL CIRCLE TO ANOTHER GRENADE LAUNCHER THAT CAN BE USED ALL BY ITSELF, JUST LIKE THE OLD M-79…

  4. The weapon sounds good, but we won’t know until the Fleet Marines(Grunts) start training and in some instances actually fire the weapon in combat.

  5. “Bloody Mongrel” – I couldn’t agree any stronger than what you have written. The M-79 was best G.D. handheld weapon to ever be issued to Marines. Each and every one of us, even the REMF’s @Khe Sanh knew it front to rear and mastered using it as a “mortar tube”!! Why in the hell reinvent the wheel ?? Typical higher up’s thinking: don’t ever survey your “people that have been there and done that” on what works and what don’t/won’t. I can see (even w/o my crystal ball) this item will be a maintenance nightmare requiring daily cleaning (remind anyone of M-16’s you had to clean & their mag’s daily), forget digging a fighting hole & eating a “C-rat meal” before dark. Gary Ross F/2/26

  6. I agree with Gary Ross. What was wrong with the M-79, except it’s a stand-alone weapon? If you want a grenadier then give him a grenade launcher and load him up with rounds to use it. In Viet Nam, Grenadiers had a pistol as back-up but they were loaded up with grenade rounds. As I recall, the basic load was 80 grenade rounds but usually whatever they could carry. Why give them a rifle? You have to split their ammo load then.

  7. AS ONE OF YOU SMART MARINES SAID SOUNDS LIKE THE M-16. PIECE OF CRAP IN AN ENVORERMENT IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR BUT THATS WHAT YOU GOT NO SAY NO COMMENT JUST USE IT IN STEAD OF THE M14. IT GOT SOME OF US GINNIE BIGS KILLED. . REAL LIFE TESTING. WE WILL FIX IT AS WE GET BATTLE FIELD RESULTS. DEAD RESULTS. I SURE AM SICK OF THIS CRAP USING GOOD MARINES TO FIND THE BUGS IN SOME DESK JOCKEYS PROJECT. AGAIN SEND THE DEVELOPERS OUT THERE TO TEST IT IN THE ENVIRORMENT THEY DEVELOPED IT FOR. DON’T MAKE US THE GINNIE PIGS SCUM BAGS. COMMENTS FROM AN M1 M14 M16 USER. I VOTE FOR THE M14 NOT THE PLASTIC M16. SEMPER FI. MARINES AND GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU. ALL GOOD MARINES GO STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH HELL.

    1. I carried the M16 for 20 months and 14 days. (1968-1969) We didn’t always get to clean them due to being in the field so much. We would put oil in the barrel and fire 20 rounds through it. We never had one M16 misfire. I agree that the M-79 was a great weapon. I carried one plus my 45 and M-16. With three of us using the M- 79 we could do a lot of damage to the NVA and Charlie. Well I’ve gave my two cents worth so I’ll sign off and get this old Marine in bed. Have a long drive tomorrow from St. Louis, Illinois to Fort Worth, TX.

  8. Agree with many of the above, nothing wrong with the M-79. Simple to use, easy to maintain and very effective. This will add weight to every grunt who is already overloaded. Plus is adds complexity, which means more things that can go wrong. As others said, let the REMFs do the field testing, in an hostile environment. They should quit trying to re-invent the wheel, it’s already been invented.

Leave a Reply to Gary Ross Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *