>>64081755
>prelude
kek.
It's interesting to see so many anons focus on the sidearm, I guess that's to be expected considering current events. It really is weird that the OP image is essentially just SIG (and HK).
>On the XM25, I wouldn't, I'll wait to see where the new one goes.
Fair. Barrett's entry won and it looks like an oversized toy, the optics don't seem to be integrated either. This appears to be the current trend in US small arms procurement. I think Barrett also used to deal with spontaneous discharge problems on the MK 22.

>>64082039
>Drones certainly have a purpose supporting maneuver at the squad level, but they shouldn't be organic.
I agree. While I still think *attack* should be the squad members' job, local surveillance should definitely be carried out by platoon-level lightweight ISR drones (fixed wing or quadrotor) as part of a dedicated ISR element. Distributing this mission too much decreases efficiency and risks tunnel vision, as you said.
>I think giving a squad leader access to a drone feed on his phone could be counterproductive.
Sure. IMO, ideally, the squad leader would only have to authorize strikes already planned by the drone operators and their system ('planning' takes a few second at most), where they would momentarily forward/direct him to footage on his screen. Rarely he might ask the drone operators for a SITREP if they have a dedicated surveillance drone, typically something very small like a Black Hornet.
>Weight is a huge problem. Batteries themselves aren't too heavy, but it adds up if you're going more than 24 hours without a refit. I'd rather have riflemen carry extra mags, frags, and AT.
I legitimately don't know if most infantry do operations for more than 24 hours without resupply or a truck to charge their things (neverserved). I've seen promo videos for Nett Warrior and the like and they say things like 'up to 24h'. Foldable solar also helps for digging in, and modern stuff generally has far better energy densities.