Joined
·
3,940 Posts
Paradigm Shift?
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Joined
·
7,055 Posts
Actually there was something about that on the Military channel awhile back. It was a demo done by Alliant that showed the round detonating over a target. Wonder how much a round of that costs? :ehsmile:
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
Really? I think I recall William Shatner carrying around something like that in one of the early STAR TREK episodes ...... :ek:
[center:slcmh70t]~*~[/center:slcmh70t]
I seems someone, somewhere, is always trying to replace the AR series with something new. There's been a half century of opportunity ....
[center:slcmh70t]~*~[/center:slcmh70t]
I seems someone, somewhere, is always trying to replace the AR series with something new. There's been a half century of opportunity ....
Joined
·
840 Posts
Twelve pounds.
No mention of the weight of the cartridges.
I wonder what the combat load is, weapon and ammunition. Thirty pounds, complete?
No gimmicks, whiz-bang electronic marvels, or miracles-of-the-week will absolve the rifleman from the practice required to perfect his necessary skill.
Are they really thinking to issue each and every combat infantryman with one of these?
(I wonder if they'll be made in China.)
No mention of the weight of the cartridges.
I wonder what the combat load is, weapon and ammunition. Thirty pounds, complete?
No gimmicks, whiz-bang electronic marvels, or miracles-of-the-week will absolve the rifleman from the practice required to perfect his necessary skill.
Are they really thinking to issue each and every combat infantryman with one of these?
(I wonder if they'll be made in China.)
Joined
·
220 Posts
According to this article http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 9-oicw.htm
there will be 4 per 9 man squad.
there will be 4 per 9 man squad.
Joined
·
120 Posts
As "Skeptic49" says:
The version we saw, "range-findered" the distance with an all-purpose sighting device on top of the then two-barrel concept piece (the "sight" did other things as well) and then transmitted the information (from the launcher) to the projectile as it travelled down the barrel. I want to say that there was an antenna-like "winding" encircling that portion of the barrel. I think that there were some concerns about this but I don't know for sure and was not privy to anything special about the project. One would think that it might have been just a desire to make things simpler and less prone to possible damage in the field. I don't know. And I don't know if anything was ever done in this regard.
Finally, and off-the-top-of-my-head, I remember something about "safeties" regarding the distances involved. I think that there was a minimum firing distance required so that a launched projectile wouldn't detonate so close to the operator that he or she would also be affected by the blast. And I want to say that there was also thought given to mistakenly lasering against leaves and glass which would obviously mess things up. And just as scope-shooters know that even branches can go unseen between them and their rifle targets, it is easy to understand how such things could happen.
Hey, I've got to run. Only saw this because I had a moment to look at the site while taking a mid-morning break. My apologies to "jdh" as I didn't have the time to look at your link (nor did I get to look at the links contained within the page that "WaltGraham's" page provided). I'll have to do that tonight.
Back on 20nov10 at 1619hrs, I posted an entry in the thread entitled "Re: Special Ops saying no thanks to the SCAR" and among a bunch of other things I babbled on about, I said:Skeptic49 said:
The device discussed in this thread appears to be either something derived from that original device or some parallel offshoot of it. For some reason, I want to say that the ones I saw live (obviously prototypes at best) and in the presentations we were given (live and on tape), promoted it as a 20mm launcher and not the 25mm mentioned in "WaltGraham's" link. I could be wrong but I think all of us were wondering at the time that even with this amazing distance-determined-detonation concept, cutting the diameter in half certainly would limit its effectiveness to some degree; something that appeared to be sidestepped in the information we were given back then.P. Marlowe said:
The version we saw, "range-findered" the distance with an all-purpose sighting device on top of the then two-barrel concept piece (the "sight" did other things as well) and then transmitted the information (from the launcher) to the projectile as it travelled down the barrel. I want to say that there was an antenna-like "winding" encircling that portion of the barrel. I think that there were some concerns about this but I don't know for sure and was not privy to anything special about the project. One would think that it might have been just a desire to make things simpler and less prone to possible damage in the field. I don't know. And I don't know if anything was ever done in this regard.
Finally, and off-the-top-of-my-head, I remember something about "safeties" regarding the distances involved. I think that there was a minimum firing distance required so that a launched projectile wouldn't detonate so close to the operator that he or she would also be affected by the blast. And I want to say that there was also thought given to mistakenly lasering against leaves and glass which would obviously mess things up. And just as scope-shooters know that even branches can go unseen between them and their rifle targets, it is easy to understand how such things could happen.
Hey, I've got to run. Only saw this because I had a moment to look at the site while taking a mid-morning break. My apologies to "jdh" as I didn't have the time to look at your link (nor did I get to look at the links contained within the page that "WaltGraham's" page provided). I'll have to do that tonight.
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
From Walt's linked article. Like the M32 and M202A1, only way to tell if they work will be to have the troops evaluate them. If it works, the demand will show it, if it sucks, the M25 will be left in the armory.
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
There has been some work done to come up with a replacement for the 40 mm with a 30mm, same power output, better ballistics and lighter ammo by 40% or so. Wife was working on some of the internals, but she said that got moved from development to another lab.
From gossip at a few parties, the 40 was good, the 30 was way better, particularly in the area of accuracy and Point of Aim. Much less lobbing a soft ball, and much more throwing a fastball, as far as technical descriptions were concerned. Also the aluminum case was replaced with a ceramic case, supposedly weighed next to nothing. There was some discussion about a two position fuse, one was instantaneous, the other was short delay.
The ceramic case allowed a hotter burning propellent and a bit higher pressure, the main decree of those ordering it were, as effective as m203, with no more recoil, and lighter. they found that carry load was effective limiter to the use of the 40 mm,
From gossip at a few parties, the 40 was good, the 30 was way better, particularly in the area of accuracy and Point of Aim. Much less lobbing a soft ball, and much more throwing a fastball, as far as technical descriptions were concerned. Also the aluminum case was replaced with a ceramic case, supposedly weighed next to nothing. There was some discussion about a two position fuse, one was instantaneous, the other was short delay.
The ceramic case allowed a hotter burning propellent and a bit higher pressure, the main decree of those ordering it were, as effective as m203, with no more recoil, and lighter. they found that carry load was effective limiter to the use of the 40 mm,
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
Geoff, did you ever fire HE out of your 203? IME, the 203 was pretty accurate live fire, not very accurate with the stupid chalk training rounds.
Reading a bit more about the XM25, I see it being used like a specialty golf club. May not use it everyday, but invaluable when you need it.
Reading a bit more about the XM25, I see it being used like a specialty golf club. May not use it everyday, but invaluable when you need it.
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
That was precisely my thought.Al Thompson said:
Joined
·
814 Posts
Back when it was new, the numbers i saw were on the order of $12,000 per weapon, and $25 per shot, "in volume."
Translated, that means "We can sell these to the Army at $12K per, and all the ammo they want, provided they buy 10,000-weapon lots, and 250,000 round ammo shipments." Just like the Air Force and planes, you buy fewer, the unit cost goes up.
So, at $35k per weapon, I'd estimate that the maker is losing money on shells at $100 per. 4 per 9-man squad? What are they smoking? To do a test in the Mountain Resort would require perhaps 100 or the weapons and each gunner is going to need to walk out the door with 20-30 rounds on him. And 100 more back in base for resupply. That's a test run (carry the one...) of five million dollars, before we even get to training, web gear, support (spare parts, etc.) and evaluation.
And has no-one considered the downsides? OK, show me how your system works in a driving rain. Wait a minute, let me turn on the sprinklers, first. Snow? How well does the targeting laser work when there is smoke? Not so good? You think the bad guys can't figure that out? How well does your system work after it has been kicked off the bed of a five-ton truck? Electronics still working?
That the Army hasn't tested nor fielded a dead-simple, semi-auto 20/25mm replacement since Vietnam ended is criminal.
Translated, that means "We can sell these to the Army at $12K per, and all the ammo they want, provided they buy 10,000-weapon lots, and 250,000 round ammo shipments." Just like the Air Force and planes, you buy fewer, the unit cost goes up.
So, at $35k per weapon, I'd estimate that the maker is losing money on shells at $100 per. 4 per 9-man squad? What are they smoking? To do a test in the Mountain Resort would require perhaps 100 or the weapons and each gunner is going to need to walk out the door with 20-30 rounds on him. And 100 more back in base for resupply. That's a test run (carry the one...) of five million dollars, before we even get to training, web gear, support (spare parts, etc.) and evaluation.
And has no-one considered the downsides? OK, show me how your system works in a driving rain. Wait a minute, let me turn on the sprinklers, first. Snow? How well does the targeting laser work when there is smoke? Not so good? You think the bad guys can't figure that out? How well does your system work after it has been kicked off the bed of a five-ton truck? Electronics still working?
That the Army hasn't tested nor fielded a dead-simple, semi-auto 20/25mm replacement since Vietnam ended is criminal.
Here's a link with a little more info, and some other interesting tidbits:
https://peosoldier.army.mil/newpeo/Foli ... 011web.pdf
File is over 16MB.
https://peosoldier.army.mil/newpeo/Foli ... 011web.pdf
File is over 16MB.
Joined
·
2,499 Posts
We got to fire once a year, two HEs and 4 or 6 smoke training rounds, the gold tip. 1973-75. Several rounds direct fire through windows, the rest at range on stacked used military tires. The guy ahead of me scored a hole in one, putting his HE round down a stack and blowing them from the bottom. Of course he'd had two tours in the 101st Airborne for practice.Al Thompson said:
Geoff
Who usually ended up with a blooper or a pig (M-60)
Joined
·
2,168 Posts
I'd like to see comparative evaluations between the XM25 and the Milkor M32 MGL*, a 40mm revolver grenade launcher being evaluated by the Marines.
Simplicity and use of ammo already proven and inventory are big positives for the Milkor. Costs less, too.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkor_MGL
Simplicity and use of ammo already proven and inventory are big positives for the Milkor. Costs less, too.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkor_MGL
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
XM-25 - The movie...
Lots of electronics there. But having seen the evolution of welding equipment from analog to digital in the last 3 decades, I've seen electronics become a lot less dodgy under adverse conditions.
I'd be a bit concerned about functionality after a total immersion, though.
Lots of electronics there. But having seen the evolution of welding equipment from analog to digital in the last 3 decades, I've seen electronics become a lot less dodgy under adverse conditions.
I'd be a bit concerned about functionality after a total immersion, though.
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
This is about the same size and pressure as a ten gauge. why not just use a modified Ithaca mag 10......
Joined
·
814 Posts
Because a modified Ithaca Mag 10 wouldn't be as hi-tech as something the Air Force used, and developing it would not present enough promotion availability to be worth the effort.
You are still thinking this is a problem that needs to be solved, instead of a process that requires manpower, budget and a slavish devotion to PowerPoint.
You are still thinking this is a problem that needs to be solved, instead of a process that requires manpower, budget and a slavish devotion to PowerPoint.
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!