New U.S. Army rifles that use radio-controlled smart bullets

old_aussie

Can I have one, please?

[URL="mhtml:{53D1FBCA-E20A-4C2B-AAA1-A4A42672539C}mid://00000030/!x-usc:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334114/New-US-Army-rifles-use-radio-controlled-smart-bullets-used-Afghanistan.html#ixzz16kkTlLaD"]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334114/New-US-Army-rifles-use-radio-controlled-smart-bullets-used-Afghanistan.html#ixzz16kkTlLaD[/URL]


No hiding place from new U.S. Army rifles that use radio-controlled smart bullets

· Weapon hailed as a game-changer that can fire up and over barriers and down into trenches

· Soldiers will start using them in Afghanistan later this month

The U.S. army is to begin using a futuristic rifle that fires radio-controlled 'smart' bullets in Afghanistan for the first time, it has emerged.
The XM25 rifle uses bullets that be programmed to explode when they have travelled a set distance, allowing enemies to be targeted no matter where they are hiding.
The rifle also has a range of 2,300 feet making it possible to hit target which are well out of the reach of conventional rifles.
The XM25 is being developed specially for the U.S. army and will be deployed with troops from later this month, it was revealed today.

The XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System has a range of roughly 2,300 feet - and is to be deployed in Afghanistan this month
The rifle's gunsight uses a laser rangefinder to determine the exact distance to the obstruction, after which the soldier can add or subtract up to 3 metres from that distance to enable the bullets to clear the barrier and explode above or beside the target.

Soldiers will be able to use them to target snipers hidden in trenches rather than calling in air strikes.

The 25-millimetre round contains a chip that receives a radio signal from the gunsight as to the precise distance to the target.
Lt. Col. Christopher Lehner, project manager for the system, described the weapon as a ‘game-changer’ that other nations will try and copy.
He expects the Army to buy 12,500 of the XM25 rifles this year, enough for every member of the infantry and special forces.

Lehner told FoxNews: ‘With this weapon system, we take away cover from [enemy targets] forever.
‘Tactics are going to have to be rewritten. The only thing we can see [enemies] being able to do is run away.’
Experts say the rifle means that enemy troops will no longer be safe if they take cover.

The XM25 appears perfect weapon for street-to-street fighting that troops in Afghanistan have to engage in, with enemy fighters hiding behind walls and only breaking cover to fire ocasionally.

The weapon's laser finder would work out how far away the enemy was and then the U.S. soldier would add one metre using a button near the trigger. When fired, the explosive round would carry exactly one metre past the wall and explode with the force of a hand grenade above the Taliban fighter.

The army's project manager for new weapons, Douglas Tamilio, said: ''This is the first leap-ahead technology for troops that we've been able to develop and deploy.'

A patent granted to the bullet's maker, Alliant Techsystems, reveals that the chip can calculate how far it has travelled.
Mr Tamilio said: 'You could shoot a Javelin missile, and it would cost £43,000. These rounds will end up costing £15.50 apiece. They're relatively cheap.
Lehner added: ‘This is a game-changer. The enemy has learned to get cover, for hundreds if not thousands of years.
‘Well, they can't do that anymore. We're taking that cover from them and there's only two outcomes: We're going to get you behind that cover or force you to flee.’
The rifle will initially use high-explosive rounds, but its makers say that it might later use versions with smaller explosive charges that aim to stun rather than kill.

Overature

sounds nice, with the US with drawing from Afghanistan their going to need a new country to try it on

Donny5

That article, like much of the Daily Mail, is bull****. The XM25 isn't radio controlled and doesn't fire bullets. It's a straight-up grenade launcher, firing the 25*40mm round. The fire control computer imparts the range to the round before it's fired, and it uses the rotation of the round in flight to determine distance; there's no radio control involved.

sponge_bob

Donny5 wrote: »

That article, like much of the Daily Mail, is bull****. The XM25 isn't radio controlled and doesn't fire bullets. It's a straight-up grenade launcher, firing the 25*40mm round. The fire control computer imparts the range to the round before it's fired, and it uses the rotation of the round in flight to determine distance; there's no radio control involved.

interesting
obviously the method for measuring distance is very unacurate and relys on perfect weather conditions

concussion

The article may be technically correct, while misleading. There is no communication between the round and the rifle after firing, but the shell may receive data from the fire computer wirelessly prior to firing.

Donny5

sponge_bob wrote: »

interesting
obviously the method for measuring distance is very unacurate and relys on perfect weather conditions

Perfect weather isn't a requirement at all, however obvious it is to you. Determining distance through rotation of a projectile fired by a rifle weapon is an almost exact science. Determining distance to target is an exact science since the advent of laser rangefinding. Air density is a function of pressure and temperature, both of which are surveyable. Wind is harder to determine along the length of the flight path, but the effect of wind on the component velocity of a projectile parallel to it's flight path isn't much.

rcdk1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5jOs5x54ds

Avgas

old_aussie wrote: »

.
Lehner added: ‘This is a game-changer. The enemy has learned to get cover, for hundreds if not thousands of years.
‘Well, they can't do that anymore. We're taking that cover from them and there's only two outcomes: We're going to get you behind that cover or force you to flee.’.

Been in the works at vast expense for years. Which is odd because during WW2 BA were able to use small and handy 51mm mortars to hit targets behind cover/hills. Didn't cost $15 a pop either.

Wheel reinvention with ribbons and bells?

US are being outfought (at the strategic level) in Astan by insurgents using mostly 1940-1950s Russian technology-AKs, RPGs,SVDs.

Think about it.

A 'smart' 25mm grenade is NOT what they need to win. More Technology is not the answer.

the_syco

Avgas wrote: »

Which is odd because during WW2 BA were able to use small and handy 51mm mortars to hit targets behind cover/hills.

New warfare, new weapons, by the sound of it. This weapon would be useful for hitting people inside a room, without knocking down the entire building.

Kiki10

Donny5 wrote: »

That article, like much of the Daily Mail, is bull****. The XM25 isn't radio controlled and doesn't fire bullets. It's a straight-up grenade launcher, firing the 25*40mm round. The fire control computer imparts the range to the round before it's fired, and it uses the rotation of the round in flight to determine distance; there's no radio control involved.

I think your right. A Barrett 50cal sniper rifle is an elephant gun yet its half the size of this 1" barrel. Id call it a cannon. Sounds like a range stopper to me. Using a lighter load in the heavy 7.62 would probably reduce the ricochet & travel problems without the cost of changing all the weapons. I was wondering how long before the 5.56 was going to seen as underpowered. God Bless America

RMD

That article defies common sense.

1) I really don't see the army giving every member of infantry a weapon which fires essentially clever 25*40mm grenades.

2) Even though it claims to be extremely efficient and designed for urban warfare, this gun is essentially useless in close quarters combat. At a distance yes it is extremely useful, but if you get ambushed in close quarters you're screwed.

3) 12,500 is nowhere near enough for infantry and special forces. The most recent figure I could find for the amount of troops in Afghanistan is 94,000 and 92,000 in Iraq. now obviously not all are infantry, but there is definitely more than 12,500; numerous times it.

Donny5

RMD wrote: »

That article defies common sense.

1) I really don't see the army giving every member of infantry a weapon which fires essentially clever 25*40mm grenades.

2) Even though it claims to be extremely efficient and designed for urban warfare, this gun is essentially useless in close quarters combat. At a distance yes it is extremely useful, but if you get ambushed in close quarters you're screwed.

3) 12,500 is nowhere near enough for infantry and special forces. The most recent figure I could find for the amount of troops in Afghanistan is 94,000 and 92,000 in Iraq. now obviously not all are infantry, but there is definitely more than 12,500; numerous times it.

It's not intended to be issued to every soldier; it's a squad level weapon, like a DMR, GPMG or SRAAW. It's deployment model will probably be closest to the SRAAW, since the XM25 isn't a personal weapon. Whoever will be carrying it will be carrying it in addition to their M4 or whatever.

Manic Moran

Which is odd because during WW2 BA were able to use small and handy 51mm mortars to hit targets behind cover/hills. Didn't cost $15 a pop either

I'd also wager that the weight of weapon and ammo used to hit someone in a ditch is probably far more to carry than the weight of an M-25 and one or two rounds.

NTM

concussion

Not to mention being able to hit people inside buildings and those fighting from conventional covered positions (maybe, the aperture could be significantly smaller than a window).

RMD

Donny5 wrote: »

It's not intended to be issued to every soldier; it's a squad level weapon, like a DMR, GPMG or SRAAW. It's deployment model will probably be closest to the SRAAW, since the XM25 isn't a personal weapon. Whoever will be carrying it will be carrying it in addition to their M4 or whatever.

I know that, but the article stated there would be enough for every member of infantry and special forces. Would be extremely interesting if they could eventually scale this weapon down to something the size of the M203.

Donny5

RMD wrote: »

I know that, but the article stated there would be enough for every member of infantry and special forces. Would be extremely interesting if they could eventually scale this weapon down to something the size of the M203.

Fair enough. That line in the article is the Daily Mail's butchering of the press release. As for shrinking it down to the size of a 203, it can't happen with this round. The electronics will certainly get smaller with time, if money's put into it, but the round needs a much longer barrel than the 40mm round. The OICW, which was the parent weapon for this, got around this by putting the 5.56 rifle under the grenade barrel.

RMD

Donny5 wrote: »

Fair enough. That line in the article is the Daily Mail's butchering of the press release. As for shrinking it down to the size of a 203, it can't happen with this round. The electronics will certainly get smaller with time, if money's put into it, but the round needs a much longer barrel than the 40mm round. The OICW, which was the parent weapon for this, got around this by putting the 5.56 rifle under the grenade barrel.

Ye, it was one of my points showing how idiotic the article was. Interesting stuff, the weapon is certainly going to change the tactics of war anyway.

concussion

The Daily Mail can barely report regular news, let alone deal with technology, military issues or military technology. TBH, I'm surprised they're not worried about soldiers getting cancer from the target aquisition hardware. Here's a much better report, written last year but reporting the same numbers (which I have seen in other credible publications)

http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/11/10/30147-army-testing-xm-25-smart-high-explosive-weapon-for-soldiers/

Kiki10

The gun i think everyone opps I mean every squad should have is that fully automatic 12g shotgun! I cant remember what the name was I think it started with A..
Them pesky ducks wouldnt stand a chance ether! ha ha

concussion

AA-12

AbusesToilets

This is not the "game changer" it purports itself to be. There have been a lot of issues with it during development, not least of which is the lack of lethality of the munition. You would be much better off carrying 40mm. The M320 is money; can be fired one handed and stashed like a pistol. A very nice piece of kit.
The money spend on this would be better put to use fielding a rifle with a more lethal caliber; 6.5, 6.8 etc. You know, address a problem that's been brought up again and again and again by troops.

concussion

The M320 is an upgraded grenade launcher which fires a relatively high trajectory explosive with a point detonating fuse. The 6.5 mm is a slightly more potent rifle round. Neither of these do the same thing as a flat trajectory, air-burst munition from an XM25.

AbusesToilets

I know, the point I was making was that this is a bit of tech "solution" looking for a problem. It has dubious terminal effectiveness, and for the money spent on it, there could have been investment in programs addressing genuine issues, like the lack of lethality of the US's current combat rifle.
The M320 is an excellent weapon and the 40mm round is much more effective. There are also new 40x51mm rounds coming online that increase the range out to approx 800m. I don't see the capability gap that this weapon is supposed to fill.

concussion

The standard 40 mm is difficult to drop right behind obstacles to defeat an enemy hiding behind. It's not high trajectory like a mortar. The 25mm HEAB can follow pretty much the same trajectory as a rifle round but instead of being stopped by the obstacle or passing straight over, can explode immediately over the enemy. Sure, you could get the same effect using a SRAAW or something similar to blow THROUGH the cover, but a section may only have a handful of these weapons and they are not tough enough to blow through some of the compounds seen in Afghanistan. The 25 mm can be carried in quantity and does little damage to the structure, while shredding whatever is behind.

Re: lethality of the 25 mm round, can you share some info on that? I know there were issues with the 20 mm prototype, which is why they upped the calibre.

If you took all the money and put it into a rifle round you'd get what really? A round, and rifle, that's between 5.56 and 7.62, thus extending the range but not doing a damn thing to address the issue of an enemy in defilade.

Locust

+1 I certainly wouldn't want to be in the room with a 25mm (mini grenade) coming through the window.

Especially when the rounds can be fired in quicker succession and the shooter doesn't have to arc/lob the rounds through the window and guesstimate the range - so its much more accurate and faster.

'Nowhere to hide!' I think that was the ad for OICW when it was proposed, now this newer rifle is reinforcing that - cover behind a wall or in a room is useless, thats the point. You can still take cover from a 40mm grenade you can't from this. It would make MOUT/Urban warfare very different.

The only thing the enemy can do is attack first and retreat the hell out of there - once an XM25 shooter knows where you are i'd say you have to move or your screwed.

AbusesToilets

Locust wrote: »

+1 I certainly wouldn't want to be in the room with a 25mm (mini grenade) coming through the window.

Especially when the rounds can be fired in quicker succession and the shooter doesn't have to arc/lob the rounds through the window and guesstimate the range - so its much more accurate and faster.

'Nowhere to hide!' I think that was the ad for OICW when it was proposed, now this newer rifle is reinforcing that - cover behind a wall or in a room is useless, thats the point. You can still take cover from a 40mm grenade you can't from this. It would make MOUT/Urban warfare very different.

The only thing the enemy can do is attack first and retreat the hell out of there - once an XM25 shooter knows where you are i'd say you have to move or your screwed.

I think you are vastly over estimating the effectiveness of this weapon system and the likely need for it. Whereas for example the US has needed an upgrade to the 5.56 family of rifles for decades now.
Why would you not be able to cover from this weapon? It is less lethal than a 40mm or rocket, so consequently easier to hide/barricade against. It's not going to be penetrating compound walls etc.

RMD

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think you are vastly over estimating the effectiveness of this weapon system and the likely need for it. Whereas for example the US has needed an upgrade to the 5.56 family of rifles for decades now.
Why would you not be able to cover from this weapon? It is less lethal than a 40mm or rocket, so consequently easier to hide/barricade against. It's not going to be penetrating compound walls etc.

The whole point of this weapon is to take cover out of the equation. If youre behind cover there must be some point you're shooting from, through a window, over a wall, popping out from behind a wall. With this weapon you get the range, add 1 meter to that and aim where the opening in the cover is or where the enemy keeps appearing from as he's more than likely right beside that point. The round then detonates barely above him or to the side of him, showering him with shrapnel.

a 40mm does more damage yes, but it involves a hell of a lot more estimation of range, trying to line the sites up and tilting the weapon perfectly to hit the desired spot. The XM25 does that all in a matter of seconds, gets the target, and doesn't wreck the building with collateral damage in the process. It wont penetrate a compound wall, but it can go straight through the window or over the wall and shower who ever is behind it.

Dacian

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The money spend on this would be better put to use fielding a rifle with a more lethal caliber; 6.5, 6.8 etc. You know, address a problem that's been brought up again and again and again by troops.

Isn't this the reason for the partial adoption of the SCAR-H by the US SOCOM?

I remember reading BlackHawk Down and one of the complaints about the M-16/M4 was that the high velocity rounds went through the unarmoured Somali gunmen without actually 'taking them down' immediately.

concussion

If I remember correctly, they were also using armour piercing ammunition.

Edit - not AP but green tip with a steel penetrator.

AbusesToilets

Dacian wrote: »

Isn't this the reason for the partial adoption of the SCAR-H by the US SOCOM?

I remember reading BlackHawk Down and one of the complaints about the M-16/M4 was that the high velocity rounds went through the unarmoured Somali gunmen without actually 'taking them down' immediately.

It is somewhat, but then again, the SCAR has plenty of problems of it's own.

concussion

Can you elaborate please AT? You still haven't told us why the 25 mm HEAB isn't lethal enough,what are the problems with the SCAR? Are these things that can be 'ironed out' through assement in combat or are there more serious issues?

gungun

Only problem I can see with the scar is the non-reciprocating charging handle, with the 25mm round I'd say it'd do a pretty good job on anyone in the room, can't see any disadvantage of it

Donny5

gungun wrote: »

Only problem I can see with the scar is the non-reciprocating charging handle, with the 25mm round I'd say it'd do a pretty good job on anyone in the room, can't see any disadvantage of it

What's wrong with non-reciprocating cocking handles? Anyway, you're in luck, the SCAR does indeed have a reciprocating cocking handle.

AbusesToilets

There are issues with how it handles heat build up; under sustained use the upper receiver can get painfully hot to hold. This also affects it''s accuracy, causes grouping to degrade. The reciprocating bolt is a pain and there have been issues with the buttstock breaking at the folding joint.

AbusesToilets

concussion wrote: »

Can you elaborate please AT? You still haven't told us why the 25 mm HEAB isn't lethal enough,what are the problems with the SCAR? Are these things that can be 'ironed out' through assement in combat or are there more serious issues?

Some of what i've read relates to the lethality of the frag from the round, and it's inability to penetrate armor. Rated to overcome flak jacket level armor, which given it's smaller explosive power vs 40mm would make me question it's usefulness.
I addition to that, is this going to be the main weapon of a soldier; if so, how useful will they be a CQB environment? A mag for this holds 8/10rds? How much ammo can they carry? What back up is there for the sight if it breaks/ runs out of power? A M320/203 doesn't present these problems. As I said before this system comes across as a solution looking for a problem.

RMD

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Some of what i've read relates to the lethality of the frag from the round, and it's inability to penetrate armor. Rated to overcome flak jacket level armor, which given it's smaller explosive power vs 40mm would make me question it's usefulness.
I addition to that, is this going to be the main weapon of a soldier; if so, how useful will they be a CQB environment? A mag for this holds 8/10rds? How much ammo can they carry? What back up is there for the sight if it breaks/ runs out of power? A M320/203 doesn't present these problems. As I said before this system comes across as a solution looking for a problem.

I made the same assumption, turns out it's bad reporting from Dailymail. It's a squad level weapon, same as the M203. What you're not taking into account is how much more accurate this is compared to the 40mm M203. 40mm you can aim roughly and hope for the best, while there's also more collateral damage.

Quoted from 2nd article posted, much more accurate than the dailymail article.

A Battlefield Scenario for the XM-25

An American patrol nears a walled, Afghan village when an enemy combatant looks over the wall and fires his AK-47 rifle at the oncoming U.S. Soldiers. The Americans return fire with their rifles and maneuver, but find it difficult to neutralize the enemy rifleman who repeatedly exposes himself for only a second, shoots, then ducks behind the thick wall. At this time, the patrol leader calls for the XM-25 gunner to take action.

Immediately, the XM-25 gunner aims the laser range-finder at the top of the wall where the enemy last ducked down. The gunner presses the laser range finder button on the front of the XM-25's trigger guard and records a distance to the wall of 451 meters. The distance is displayed on the TAFC's optical lens along with an adjusted aim point, or "cross hair," to help the soldier better aim the XM-25.

The adjusted aim point takes into account air pressure, temperature, and the ballistics of the 25mm round for the given range of 451 meters. The soldier then uses the increment button on the trigger guard and adds one more meter to the firing solution since the enemy combatant is about one meter behind the wall.

Upon pulling the trigger, the TAFC programs the HEAB round in the chamber of the weapon, telling the round to explode at 452 meters from launch point. The HEAB round departs the rifled barrel, arms at 30 meters, clears the top of the wall at 451 meters and explodes its two warheads at 452 meters, right above the enemy. The entire firing sequence takes the gunner less than five seconds to aim and fire and another 2.5 seconds for the round to fly and explode over the target, thereby clearing the way for the patrol to resume its mission.

I'd like to see a 40mm be anywhere near as accurate as that, even in a much smaller range. It simply couldn't. If I'm not mistaken the effective range of the M203 is 150m and the maximum range is 400m? The XM25 can fire up to 700m.

Locust

Donny5 wrote: »

What's wrong with non-reciprocating cocking handles? Anyway, you're in luck, the SCAR does indeed have a reciprocating cocking handle.

I read that the SCAR mk16 - 5.56 suffered 'teething problems' when put on the battlefield and operationally wasn't up to scratch, rattled a bit, handles broke etc.... Not enough to justify the money over what they already have.

http://www.defensereview.com/socom-cancels-fn-mk-16-scar-l-scar-light-riflecarbinesbr-program-will-the-fn-mk-17-scar-h-scar-heavy-survive/

They seem to be keeping a few SCAR mk17 - 7.62's for now, heavier rounds do more damage and have more range and they are a good rifle after all.

RE the light or heavy rounds debate - I found some good quotes from soldiers and ballistic experts on the 5.56mm round:

" ...the troops want a round that will put the enemy down with only one hit… the current issue 5.56 round… is proving itself to be woefully inadequate as a man stopper…" ~from a declassified report from the troops involved in Operation Anaconda.

"We have a very stable, accurate round that can pierce body armor. However, the bullet has a regrettable tendency to remain stable, even after striking an adversary, with a resultantly small wound channel." ~Seth R. Nadel.

"Unfortunately, the over-stabilized 5.56 M855 round does not yaw readily, and may do so only after exiting the body, thus creating a .22 caliber through and through hole. Unless this hole is in near solid material, like the spleen or liver, or hits the heart or central nervous system, it does little damage." ~Dr. Martin Fackler, formerly of the Army Wound Ballistics Laboratory.

"The Marines shot what they were conditioned to fire, and the 5.56 round will not put a man to the ground with two shots to the chest." ~Marine Expeditionary Unit-Special Operations Command (MEUSOC)

"5.56 rounds were passing through the enemy without much effect" "I looked through my scope and observed a bad guy rolling around on the ground after taking at least six hits. These hits were to the torso, but they were not stopping the enemy even with a good chest shot." "My first 5.56 round seemed to have little or no effect and the second just slowed him down." ~U.S. Marines protecting the old Ba’ath party headquarters in downtown Mosol


RE - the 25mm grenade - i wouldn't want to be in a room with one of them going off!! (i guess if they are smaller you can carry more and technically they still have lethality).

AbusesToilets

RMD wrote: »

I made the same assumption, turns out it's bad reporting from Dailymail. It's a squad level weapon, same as the M203. What you're not taking into account is how much more accurate this is compared to the 40mm M203. 40mm you can aim roughly and hope for the best, while there's also more collateral damage.



I'd like to see a 40mm be anywhere near as accurate as that, even in a much smaller range. It simply couldn't. If I'm not mistaken the effective range of the M203 is 150m and the maximum range is 400m? The XM25 can fire up to 700m.

I think with enough training a soldier can be plenty accurate with 40mm, there are electronic aiming modules for use with 203/320 that allow to accurately assess distance and correct elevation. Granted the 25mm round has a flatter trajectory but for me it's less bang for more buck.
And as for the range comparison, there are newer 40x51mm rds that range out between 600-800m.
Collateral damage estimates are pretty specious, part of the big problem nowadays in Afghanistan is the Taliban's TTP of using civilians as cover. A round over a wall from the M25 can be just as likely to kill a civilian as anything else. In addition the main lethality of this weapon comes from the frag effect of the round, not exactly the most precise attacking method, even with a built in detonation pattern.

Locust

A smaller warhead - higher accuracy and exploding beside a target behind cover will ensure less collateral damage which is important when you're fighting in built up areas. Future battlefields look like they will take place in built up areas/cities.

With the 40mm:- lobbing a grenade through a window and blowing up an entire floor/someones house to get the one sniper that may be hiding in a room, is the surest way to wreck the place have everyone left alive in the building visit the local rebel militia recruiting center to sign up...

25mm has less bang but more advantages - more ammo, more accuracy, faster for follow up rounds, more tactics/supremacy, less skill to operate (in terms of having to arc the grenade, less collateral damage.

The xm rifle is fugly, but the bulky design will be slimmed down over time and the explosive 'intelligent' rounds can only improve. The truth is designs for conventional firearms/gunpowder/bullets have kinda hit their peak/zenith at the moment in terms of technology. This rifle idea will be looked at as a new avenue forward to get an advantage over future enemies. I think the chinese have already started making a clone.

Avgas

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'd also wager that the weight of weapon and ammo used to hit someone in a ditch is probably far more to carry than the weight of an M-25 and one or two rounds.

NTM

Hi Manic

My point was that having an infantry weapon that can easily provide defilade fires for dealing with 'bad people' behind cover is certainly NOT new-which is what the spokesman quoted in the story suggests.

Nor are 'smart' fuzes that new either. I mean timed fuzes go back to WW1 and the M734 fuze for the US 60mm mortar was pretty 'smart' as well.

The XM25 weapons system and 25x40mm is now being marketed (with a straight face) by Alliant as a "Counter-defilade Target Engagement" (CDTE) system…no less….

Originally it was the failed OICW program to replace the M16 family…which is still going strong(ish)……..

To illustrate my argument, I used the example of the old 2inch/51mm BA mortar.

It may not rock your world. Fine.

You suggest it is a clunker to carry. Think again.

While not issued to each section, at the platoon level AFAIK the British 2 inch (which was originally a Spanish design) was never considered too heavy a piece of kit to bother carrying….The WW2 marks weighed about 4.1kg or 9ibs and the post war marks were a bit heavier at about 13+ibs or 6.28kg.

It had an effective range of 800m or 875 yards. Minimum ranges were usually about 100-150m but as low as 50m was possible in later marks with an insert.

Doubtless with modern composites and titanium alloys you could engineer a tube a lot lighter.

For comparison a loaded 7.62mm G3A3 assault rifle weighed in at 11ib-so one would be talking about somebody having the joy of lugging around an old heavy assault rifle equivalent-not fun but hardly an impossible weight.

The weight of the projectile thrown was usually between 1-2kg, or 2-4.4ibs, with the more modern rds being closer to 1kg. About 50% of that was usually HE (or equivalent). They were stored in 3 rd packs or later 5 rd satchels-roughly a 3-5/6kg burden for any solider carrying.

It could also be used from behind and sometimes within cover -if a window or other opening was tall/wide enough.

Smoke and Flare rds were developed by the 1940s and it was often used tactically in those roles.

My point?

If you want a weapon that is cheap and reliable to provide indirect fires on BAD PEOPLE who are behind cover then there are proven technologies from the 1930s, and earlier.

Wasting millions of US Taxpayers "borrowed" dollars on something that is claimed to be revolutionary, but is not, simply doesn't make sense.

This is the Buck Rogers Theory of Defence Procurement which the US have suffered under since the McNamara era.

It also lost the US Army Vietnam. Ditto probably Astan.

Yours respectfully, A.

Avgas

concussion wrote: »

Not to mention being able to hit people inside buildings and those fighting from conventional covered positions (maybe, the aperture could be significantly smaller than a window).

Hi Concussion,



The 2in mortar could be fired close to the horizontal apparently and the rd fired using a trigger mechanism-so in fact 2 inch mortar were certainly used in direct fire roles including in house to house fighting. A bit haphazard and less than ideal, but it worked.

Also I wonder what sort of payload of HE would a 25mm grenade carry to really deal with BAD PEOPLE who are lurking behind cover/within a building?

Look…. if you really want to break down walls, then a poxy smart 25mm grenade does not seem an obvious bet.

Some people are posting about collateral damage-and arguing the 25mm is a good weapon because it lacks decisive killing power. If that is your genuine concern then don't fire grenades into a building-use CS gas or something else tactically. A 25mm grenade will likely kill civilians in an enclosed space just as much as a 40mm rd or an 84mm warhead.

If you want to bust walls use the proper tool.

Revamped versions of the venerable 66mm M72 LAW exist…the A7 model and others, and there are tweaked versions of "our" AT4….and the CG84…and so on…..these are proven bunker/wall busters that can all be relied upon.

A salvo of expensive 25mm grenades by way of contrast?

Maybe it would work, but at vast cost.

My point?

There is not much new in the world.

Infantry have had for years basic technology that would allow any section or at least platoon to deliver both direct and indirect fires, and from within cover.

The 2inch mortar was one simple way of doing that. The various marks of 40mm grenade are yet another way. If you want to bust walls/bunkers then there are specialized tools for that as well.

None of them cost a fraction of the money that has been excreted at the troubled US Army X25 'son of OICW' weapon project.

Yours, etc. A.

Avgas

On the merits of 40mm versus 25mm grenades an interesting link can be found to weapon guru Tony Williams here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/grenades.htm

I especially like his summary: "The older 40mm weapons may be bigger, heavier and ballistically inferior to the new 25mm systems, but their larger grenades provide much more versatility, especially in the LV weapons. As a result, 40mm grenades are likely to remain in service for the foreseeable future."

25mm grenade = gold plated wheel re-invention when money is badly needed for many other things.

Donny5

Avgas wrote: »

This is the Buck Rogers Theory of Defence Procurement which the US have suffered under since the McNamara era.

It also lost the US Army Vietnam. Ditto probably Astan.

If you think that any procurement decisions cost the United States the Vietnam war, I don't know what to say to you. You've lost all credibility in my eyes.

Avgas

Donny5 wrote: »

If you think that any procurement decisions cost the United States the Vietnam war, I don't know what to say to you. You've lost all credibility in my eyes.

Well maybe a bit extreme...on their own no one procurement decision cost the war.....lots of variables were at work...but there was a 'Buck Rogers' mindset that high technology gizmos could win the war......which was patently false...and there was an obsession with firepower and mobility... instead of getting strategic issues right, early and effective vietnamization and proper COIN.....

Manic Moran

Avgas wrote: »

On the merits of 40mm versus 25mm grenades an interesting link can be found to weapon guru Tony Williams here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/grenades.htm

I especially like his summary: "The older 40mm weapons may be bigger, heavier and ballistically inferior to the new 25mm systems, but their larger grenades provide much more versatility, especially in the LV weapons. As a result, 40mm grenades are likely to remain in service for the foreseeable future."

25mm grenade = gold plated wheel re-invention when money is badly needed for many other things.

You are drawing a false-logic conclusion there. It's like saying that because 155mm artillery rounds can do such a range of functions there is no need to bother with a 120mm HE round for a tank.

I think the lads would be quite happy to have an M25 around with them in addition to an M203. It adds a range of capabilities which the 40mm grenade does not provide. What Tony points out is that the 40mm still provides a range of capabilities which the 25mm does not provide, and thus the calibre isn't going away any time soon.

lots of variables were at work...but there was a 'Buck Rogers' mindset that high technology gizmos could win the war......which was patently false...and there was an obsession with firepower and mobility... instead of getting strategic issues right, early and effective vietnamization and proper COIN.....

Technology is a force multipler. What would have been the comparison with a 'correct strategic issues/COIN' sort of policy, and a 'correct strategic issues/COIN sort of policy carried out by personnel with Buck Rogers equipment'?

NTM

Evade

Avgas wrote: »

Look…. if you really want to break down walls, then a poxy smart 25mm grenade does not seem an obvious bet.

If you want to bust walls use the proper tool.

Isn't the point of this weapons system that you didn't have to knock down the enemy's cover in order to hit them?

concussion

Avgas - the 51 mm mortar is being (has already?) been phased out with the introduction of the UGL. I believe that a tender for 60 mm mortars has gone out to replace them but I don't know if they will become a platoon level weapon.

The 51 mm HE bomb weighs in at over 900 g while the 25 mm is just under 150 g. There's a massive difference in the weight of ammunition, especially as you factor in the requirement for bracketing rounds from the un-stabilised mortar versus computerised fire control.

The XM-25 also addresses an enemy in a barricaed building or a pre-prepared fighting position with top-cover - a 51 mm mortar wouldn't do much to that even with a direct hit while the 25 mm has the ability to be fired directly through the embrasure. It's not there to blow up walls or other defences like a SRAAW or CG 84 it's there to go into them so you can clear the enemy with a lot less boom, which equates to a lot less weight for the soldier.

Edit - re: cost. Each 25 mm round is expected to cost less than $28. I appreciate the development of the systems is expensive, but that's the way with all weapons systems. Certainly the technology used today will someday be the archaic fore-father of something even smaller and deadlier in the future..

Avgas

Thanks Concussion, good points as usual, but see:
:

concussion wrote: »

Avgas - the 51 mm mortar is being (has already?) been phased out with the introduction of the UGL. I believe that a tender for 60 mm mortars has gone out to replace them but I don't know if they will become a platoon level weapon.


Neither do I. OS119 would be your man for the heads up on that. But AFAIK there are people within the BA community who lament the passing of the 51mm and see the move as quite misguided. Whether its in 51 or 60mm is not so vital-a lightweight 'commando' model has proven useful over time. Perhaps improvments in 40mm can fill the void. Not sure are the French keeping their 51mm system-they also have a system, PAPOP I think, which rivals to some degree the XM-25.

The 51 mm HE bomb weighs in at over 900 g while the 25 mm is just under 150 g. There's a massive difference in the weight of ammunition, especially as you factor in the requirement for bracketing rounds from the un-stabilised mortar versus computerised fire control.

Agreed but a 51mm rd landing close to bad people would have to have a different suppression effect compared with a 25mm rd, no? If you add fancy laser rangefinders and a miniature firing solutions computer, which is vital to the workings of the XM25, plus the serious money this entails, and graft all that onto the basic 51mm mortar team ( man with tube+man with satchel = simple/proven) you would see improvements in accuracy as well. AFAIK there are developments in smaller fire control solutions for 60mm class small mortars which are pretty smart as well.

The XM-25 also addresses an enemy in a barricaed building or a pre-prepared fighting position with top-cover - a 51 mm mortar wouldn't do much to that even with a direct hit while the 25 mm has the ability to be fired directly through the embrasure. It's not there to blow up walls or other defences like a SRAAW or CG 84 it's there to go into them so you can clear the enemy with a lot less boom, which equates to a lot less weight for the soldier.

A direct hit by a 51mm or 60mm HEDP rd would be an effective way of taking out a bunker with top cover, but we both know one of the items I mentioned before would be what you would want to use for certainty/safety. Some would say overkill-I would say be sure. The scenario you describe sounds a bit like what US forces encountered in Fallujah-where loonies had prepared fire positions they were quite happy to die in. They ended up calling in 155mm fires in some cases to settle it.

RUAG make 60mm HEDP rds (and IR marker rds as well). Would a 25mm rd or a salvo of same, really penetrate reinforced concrete roofs? Maybe a basic 51mm wouldn't either but you have more space in a lager volume round to do things with payloads and fuzes.

Your second tactical scenario is about precision and the ability to fire through a small embrasure-perhaps no bigger than a few cm across for a sniper say or embedded PK. You say the 25mm grenade has better velocity, trajectory and accuracy to this. Of course you are right, but that comes at significant cost. Plus, maybe I'm missing stuff here, but to emplace an accurate shot at a small target like that, won't the firer likely have to expose himself/herself and line up the fire control solution for a direct fire shot, etc. Being able to remove the embrasure with a solution that can be fired within cover and that is definitive, sounds much better to me-M72A7 or something. If that was not available or suitable, a section commander might simply detail the DM to put down fire on the embrasure, no? That would be pretty precise and have minimal collateral effects as well? It also probably wouldn't work very well. Yes your XM25 solution should work superbly in theory. In real high intensity urban combat it may work much less well-assuming the associated laser/fire control computer is robust enough to hack it.

Edit - re: cost. Each 25 mm round is expected to cost less than $28. I appreciate the development of the systems is expensive, but that's the way with all weapons systems. Certainly the technology used today will someday be the archaic fore-father of something even smaller and deadlier in the future..

Interesting. I saw somewhere that the unit cost for the earlier version of the OICW (not the same as the XM25 but quite alike) came in at a cool $18,000 a piece. Think about that--if you want 2 of those per section. To equip a Coy would cost over $300,000, to equip a single infantry battalion over 1 million. Not all weapons systems have crazy price tags-the Taliban are fighting and winning with 1950s Russian infantry weaponry, which objectively is inferior in technological terms. In reality it doesn't matter that much as regards the simple strategy of attrition their using to win -they have adequate firepower to engage NATO forces and in some cases bring fire-fights to a draw, win the odd one, or sometimes simply out range NATO forces with their highly expensive 5.56mm rifles that lack range. Imagine if they were even better trained, had good eyesight, etc.? I'm not saying its logical for NATO to arm its soldiers with the same stuff mind, just drawing attention to basic principle of 'cost/benefits'.

My point is the costs of XM25 seem very large; the benefits seem marginal. There are other things to be doing re improving 'western' infantry.

Avgas

Manic Moran wrote: »

You are drawing a false-logic conclusion there. It's like saying that because 155mm artillery rounds can do such a range of functions there is no need to bother with a 120mm HE round for a tank.

Not meaning to be "previous"with you, but aren't your comparing apples and pears there: tank guns versus artillery howitzers which are fairly different beasts, and your mixing the need for direct fire versus indirect fire modes?

The comparison with the XM25 is mostly against existing 40mm grenades and maybe 51 or 60mm "commando" mortar systems. All are infantry support systems and all can to some degree provide defilade fires. The first two can also provide short range direct fires, whereas mortars cannot really do this in the normal sense, although as I explained, BA 51mm could fire close and quick as short as 50m! (i.e from one house to another house in MOUT)

The better analogy would be arguing we don't need 127mm naval guns in that calibre because there is a wonderful 155m calibre [it didn't work!], or that 120mm tank guns are not really that needed if updated 105mm guns can handle threats [moot]. My point is that existing 40mm systems and even 51-60m mortar systems can provide adequate solutions as much lower cost, reduced logistical complexity and savings in training time.

Cheers, Av.

concussion

The XM25 isn't about suppression. Take an enemy behind the high wall of a compound. You can suppress him with direct automatic fire but you still need to get into the compound to destroy him. Due to the fact that he's up against a thick wall it's hard to lob indirect fire at him (40mm grenades and 51 mm, 60 mm or 81 mm mortar) as they either hit the wall in front or drop past into the compound. Due to the high likelihood of civilians in the area you don't want to fire a load of mortars into the compound, and neither do you want to destroy the walls with SRAAW's, 84 mm RCL or Javelin. The 25 mm provides a way of effectively destroying the enemy once he has been suppressed, without the need for huge amounts of heavy high explosive from mortars or rockets. It also means a lot less ammunition expenditure and manouvreing if you can destroy the target from your initial contact point.

Another example, in a conventional sense, is the prepared fighting position. Unless you are going up to 81 mm mortars or artiller, taking out a position with indirect fire is not likely. Direct fire from 84 mm RCL and SRAAW could do the job but they don't have the pinpoint accuracy and may not destroy the target. 25 mm programmable rounds once more give the opportunity to send some HE directly into the position to destroy the enemy you have suppressed through direct machinegun fire, once more removing lots of HE and manouvre from the equation.

From the little I know about PAPOP, it seems like an upgraded UGL - it retains a high trajectory and could be of use for targets in defilade. However, I don't think it offers much of an advantage over other 40 mm grendades when it come to destroying positions with top cover, such as conventional fighting positions and buildings.

To put it simply - the 25 mm HEAB isn't about destroying positions or suppressing the enemy. It is not designed to be 'lobbed' over obstactles like 40 mm grendades or mortars, it is designed to be fired into the enemy position like a rifle bullet where it will explode and destroy the targets who are taking cover out of the line of fire.


Saying that the Taliban are winning with 50's technology is a red herring; a counter-insurgency war will always be that way. Look at Germany in the Second World War - how much money did they invest in their military, only to be defeated in a conventional war?

Manic Moran

Avgas wrote: »

Thanks Concussion, good points as usual, but see:
:


Interesting. I saw somewhere that the unit cost for the earlier version of the OICW (not the same as the XM25 but quite alike) came in at a cool $18,000 a piece. Think about that--if you want 2 of those per section. To equip a Coy would cost over $300,000, to equip a single infantry battalion over 1 million.

I don't think it'll come to quite that cost, but even if it did, I don't think you're understanding the scale of the US military budget. To equip a single battalion with PVS-14 monocles (which is the standard, every person has one, piece of night vision), costs the better part of 2 million. And that's 2002 technology with a unit price of $3k, the latest PSQ-20s run at about $10k per unit.

I just received four new LRAS-3s in my humble reservist cavalry troop last week. My property book value went up by $1.7m. Outfitting an entire battalion on an active battlefield with one M25 per fire team for $1m isn't going to be as much as blinked at.

Not meaning to be "previous"with you, but aren't your comparing apples and pears there: tank guns versus artillery howitzers which are fairly different beasts, and your mixing the need for direct fire versus indirect fire modes?

The comparison with the XM25 is mostly against existing 40mm grenades and maybe 51 or 60mm "commando" mortar systems. All are infantry support systems and all can to some degree provide defilade fires. The first two can also provide short range direct fires, whereas mortars cannot really do this in the normal sense, although as I explained, BA 51mm could fire close and quick as short as 50m! (i.e from one house to another house in MOUT)

Do you deny that 155mm can also be used in a direct fire mode? Proved very useful in urban combat, and is routinely trained as a defensive tactic in case the artillery battery finds itself under attack. Or that tank cannons can be used for indirect fire by use of a gunner's quadrant, and occasionally a ramp? Of course you don't. Though there is some overlap between the roles, M-25 primarily provides a capability which the light mortars do not. Much as the light mortars and larger grenade launchers primarily provide a capability where the M25 does not. That doesn't mean to say that you can't have the occasional target which can be serviced adequately by either system.

I believe those additional capabilities are worth lugging around the odd M25. And, frankly, if given a choice between having my platoon carry an M25 or a 60mm mortar, I'd go with the M25. Most of the unique capability of the 60mm can also, if required, be provided from the firebase.

NTM