US Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' $35,000 Rifle 782
rbrander writes "Don't call it a 'rifle,' call it the 'XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System' and get your $35,000 worth. Much more than a projector of high-speed lead, this device hurls small grenades that automatically detonate in mid-flight with 1-meter accuracy over nearly 800m. The vital field feature is the ability to explode 1m behind the wall you just lazed — the one with the enemy hiding behind it."
Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm also a little cautious on the Fox News reporting. It sounds too good to be true. The price sounds okay, an M16 can cost up to $28,000 and frankly I'd rather hit the taxpayers than cause more deaths. I fear that there may be more serious hidden costs like this little gem:
Once the trigger is pulled and the round leaves the barrel, a computer chip inside the projectile
Computer chips are cheap but if you're putting clip after clip of bullets out during an intense firefight, I'm going to guess that on that last clip or magazine you wished that you had opted for more 'dumb bullets' versus less chipped bullets. I guess the proposed scenario makes it sound like only select fighters will have this weapon in each unit.
A patrol encounters an enemy combatant in a walled Afghan village who fires an AK-47 intermittently from behind cover, exposing himself only for a brief second to fire.
Again, that's assuming that you have the correct wall, the combatant hasn't fallen back into another building waiting to ambush you on the inside and also hoping they're not housed with women and children, as I've heard is often the case.
Sounds like a really great and innovative improvement for select uses but I really gotta question the 'game-changer' assertion. If I woke up tomorrow and found out that deployment of this weapon allowed the precise termination of all combatants with no civilian casualties and the war was basically over, I'd be happy for being wrong.
Re:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:2, Insightful)
The price sounds okay, an M16 can cost up to $28,000 and frankly I'd rather hit the taxpayers than cause more deaths.
FYI, a non-transferable M16 (that is, not for regular-old-civilian purchase) costs something around $800-$1000, not the $28k you mention.
My only problem with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they have zero chance against us on the battle field, they'll shift the focus of their attacks. Namely, more terrorist attacks. IEDs, roadside bombs and attacks on American civilians.
LK
Re:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:3, Insightful)
...hope that an improvement like this actually does allow the soldiers to better target the real bad guys and not civilians as well as protect themselves from compromising situations.
You know, from the description it seems that this weapon is fabulous at killing people who are hiding behind cover when there's some shooting nearby, people which can't be seen clearly...
Even is those will be enemy combatants often enough, that still doesn't preclude nearby civilians as you point out later.
Re:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:4, Insightful)
The price sounds okay, an M16 can cost up to $28,000 and frankly I'd rather hit the taxpayers than cause more deaths.
FYI, a non-transferable M16 (that is, not for regular-old-civilian purchase) costs something around $800-$1000, not the $28k you mention.
True that. Someone looked in shotgun news and assumed that there were no other factors pushing up the civilian price.
Basically, look at the lowest price you can find on a reputable AR-15, then take 10-20% off of that to estimate what the government is paying.
LK
Re:Forget the cost of the gun (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, a majority of ammunition fired from automatic weapons in combat is used in suppressing fire. I've heard an official figure of tens of thousands of rounds fired per confirmed kill. Even if a single 5.56mm is cheap, ten thousand of them ain't.
Suppressing fire, for those who don't want to go google it, is firing on the enemy's position to keep them "suppressed", i.e. scared shitless and behind cover. Or, put another way, if you can keep firing on them, they won't be able to return fire on you without sticking their heads out into a blizzard of incoming lead. An application of the principle that the best defence is a good offence. Most of those shots won't actually hit any enemy targets, because a sensible opponent will stay out of the line of fire for as long as the suppression is maintained.
Obviously, this costs a ton and a half of ammunition, which adds up in cost, and raises the risk of hitting other targets downrange (like civilians or friendly soldiers). A weapon that allows you to eliminate an opponent in cover with a single (expensive) shot might actually be cheaper, and certainly would be more precise, reducing the risk of collateral damage.
get ready for more friendly fire/collateral damage (Score:2, Insightful)
so you're firing on a target you can't see...I'd bet money that in many cases the target won't even be properly identified...somebody will be fired upon...see somebody "gophering" at a window...and promptly kill an innocent family in a house...we'll hear about it from wikileaks in 2014...
Re:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:3, Insightful)
"target the real bad guys and not civilians"
That would be a pretty advanced AI, seeing as the distinction is quite blurry for humans, especially politicians, soldiers, and probably the "real bad guys" themselves.
Half a billion dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
According to TFA, the US Army is going to shell out over $400,000,000 on these guns. Each shell (?) has a computer chip; they aren't pennies apiece.
Meanwhile, we keep hearing about an overwhelming debt and how we'll need to cut social security benefits, cut energy R&D, cut mass transit investments, cut unemployment benefits. But we've got enough money to provide a tax cut for those making $250,000+, and we've got enough money for yet another BFG.
I love my country despite it's terrible collective decision making skills.
Correct perspective: This is a cost SAVINGS device (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not so sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
As another poster pointed out an M-16 can approach 30k as it is.
Don't believe everything you read on /.
Gatling, the Dentist (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing people who hid behind a wall... (Score:1, Insightful)
Presumably, they tested the weapon (Score:3, Insightful)
Look-- I can understand the questioning of the physics behind a round moving 2000 feet per second exploding and killing people below it. It sounds like a difficult problem to solve. I'm certain that you're not the first person to wonder about this.
Still, this weapon has been in development for a long long time. Presumably, they've tested the ammunition at some point in the 10+ years that they've been developing it. During that testing, I'm sure they figured out how to make it kill things despite the physical challenges.
Re:hard to see how this works (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that they actually tested to see if it really works. Otherwise, and given that this thing is now in the field, there would already be a pissed-off bunch of Army riflemen complaining that it doesn't work. And in the age of bloggers, wikileaks, etc., we'd probably be hearing about it already.
If I'm facing a squad armed with one of these, my bet is to not be on the other side of the wall.
Re:Killing people seldom Ends the Fighting (Score:0, Insightful)
The Taliban in Afghanistan have it easier. When in doubt, kill the ones in US military uniforms. If nobody in target area is wearing a US military uniform, kill the white or black guys, and avoid killing the brown ones wearing shalwar kameez. Whereas the US troops just have to kill the wrong person and turns out the whole village is related to him/her, either by blood or by marriage. I think they've screwed up too many times already. And genocide is not a viable option for the USA.
Damn straight. So why are we in Afghanistan again?
Let's recap. Bush thought that Afghanistan had bin Laden. Nevermind that bin Laden was extensively trained by the CIA. Forget all of that. Let's pretend he didn't learn everything he knows from the USA and that this is a FUCKING FACT whether anyone likes it or not.. Ok, selective amnesia secured.
Now then, where was I? Oh yes. Ok, Afghanistan. Why did Bush Jr go after them? Ah, now I remember. He did it because he asked Afghanistan for bin Laden to be extradited to the USA for terrorism. Afghanistan got all uppity and had the nerve to question their "betters", the elite USA, and asked for evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11. Instead of providing that evidence, or further negotiating, the USA decided we were going to kill some sand niggers (please pardon the expression -- the point is, we have not treated them fairly, have not given hem anything like a chance to explain themselves before we go and blow them up).
So we invade a sovereign nation, destroy the Taliban, wreak havoc, test out some of our new military-industrial-complex toys of war, destroy a lot of families, wound and kill many civilians, oh but we're justified in that... because somebody actually asked us if we have a reason for conducting a manhunt in their territory.... how dare they! Assholes. Don't they know that when the USA says "Jump, motherfucker!" everyone else is supposed to say "Sir, yes sir! How high shall I jump for you?!"
The international bankers, especially those behind the Federal Reserve and the IMF, profit no matter who wins. Maybe some of you who haven't yet been brainwashed into ignoring "follow the money" can appreciate that fact. The rest of you, well, I go against your dogma and I said the phrase "sand niggers" even though that was for a good reason to make a good point... so I am sure I'm some kind of bad guy now right? With us or against us? Oh yeah, anybody else think it's funny that opium production in Afghanistan dramatically INCREASED after the USA got done there?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Hope you read more books (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Half a billion dollars (Score:4, Insightful)
yes. Its too bad there isn't another way to keep US soldiers alive and healthy though. I thought one of the biggest military expenses was killing people.
Re:So basically a very expensive K11? nice (Score:2, Insightful)
With more firepower. The problem with the K11 (and early XM-29) was the 20mm round didn't have enough firepower. The xm-25 has a 25mm round which is 50% more powerful than the 20mm.
Re:Also there is simply a weight consideration (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is, its really, really hard to hit a target beyond 300m to maybe 400m with an AK-74 whereas with an M-16, its still shooting true out to 600+ (550m) yards.
That is true, but it is unclear how useful it is to give a weapon with such range to every single infantryman. You also need some decent optics to shoot at such distances accurately, while hitting a man at 200-300m is perfectly possible with iron sights.
In Russian army, and those modeled after it, the role of reaching out to those distances is delegated to what's called "designated marksmen" in US armed forces, armed with SVD.
Anyway, I'm quite certain that vanilla AK (neither AKM nor 74) is not the best gun for desert environments. Neither is AR. There are other service rifles out there, though, which are both accurate enough even at long ranges - even if slightly less so than AR - and noticeably more reliable than AR at that.
As for reliability, assuming the US continues to stay with the M-16 (they are looking at options and have been for the last several years), expect the reliability of the M-16 (or whatever variant it turns into; assuming they stay) to go through the roof. Newer designs are easily as reliable as AK's while maintaining much tighter tolerances.
What new designs do you mean? Gas piston ARs? Yeah, those can be made quite reliable, if you change half of the rest of the rifle as well, like in HK416. But then it's not really an AR anymore, apart from a similar outside look.
If you didn't mean that, then I'm curious how you expect the "reliability to go through the roof" with the same basic direct impingement / tight tolerances design which gives the AR platform its renowned accuracy.
Having said that, a properly maintained M-16 is an extremely reliable weapon.
That exact phrase and its variants often come up when discussing the reliability of AR platform. It's perfectly true, but also very misleading. As one of American troops who saw action in recent conflicts has put it, "It shoots very well when clean; but sometimes, it also needs to shoot when dirty, too". It's a good thing when your troops have enough time and no other worries to spend enough time on weapon maintenance, but war is war, and it's not always feasible. A front-line service rifle should be able to cope with that.
Re:Killing people seldom Ends the Fighting (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's recap. Bush thought that Afghanistan had bin Laden.
He had training camps there you idiot. Its well documented he's eluded capture numerous times. He was there.
The rest of your post is of equal stupidity its completely without merit. I really wish people who really believe this bullshit would bother to educate themselves before the make themselves sound like a complete idiot. Obvious why you posted anonymously.
Nevermind that bin Laden was extensively trained by the CIA.
Nice way to completely ignore Russia and their invasion. Nope, something like intelligent facts are likely to get in the way of your ranting stupidity.
Ok, selective amnesia secured.
Then we agree...you have selective amnesia.
I can't even stand to respond to the rest of your ignorant rant. Its not the least bit grounded in reality. You've got enough buzzwords here and there to sound like you know what you're talking about to the generally ignorant. But the sad truth is, almost everything you said is complete bullshit and/or a convenient laps of important, well documented facts.
Re:Also there is simply a weight consideration (Score:3, Insightful)
Its actually not questionable at all. Ask any infantryman who served before the M16 was issued. The M1 was accurate out to 1000 yards and was commonly used at those extended ranges in every war before Vietnam.
The whole reason why everyone eventually opted for smaller calibers (such as 7.62x39 or 5.56) post WW2 was because it turned out that the theoretical large range of large-caliber infantry rifles of the day was almost never really exercised. In particular, Russians found out that most engagements occurred at the ranges of up to 300m, which is why that is the effective range of aimed fire with a 7.62x39 AK.
This isn't to say that rifles were never used at greater ranges in WW2, it's just that said use was certainly not common, and best fulfilled by someone with a weapon specialized for it (which includes optics).
Actually, you don't. Its common for rifles to be issued with ladder sights which allow you to select your target's distance and it compensates in barrel rise.
It's not a matter of compensating for barrel rise so much so as aiming it accurately enough at such a small target.
By the way, just because a rifle has sights graded to some distance doesn't mean that it can actually be shot effectively at that distance. AKM has its sights graded for up to 800m, but you'd be insane trying to hit anything at that range with the rifle no matter the sights.
You need to keep in mind, most battle tactics include covering fire while you close the gap to more accurate ranges. If I can accurate engage you at 600-700 meters while you need to close to 300-400 meters to obtain the same accuracy, I have a huge advantage for 200-300 meters.
Yes, hence specialized weapons to cover the "600-700m" role.
The only other point here is that this requires terrain where you actually have those 600-700m of open ground. Which Iraq and Afghan deserts are, I'll concede that.
Not really - but close. Their role is to provide suppression fire, allowing the rest of the squad to close the gap. Many mistakenly believe their role is that of a sniper. Its not. They are not trained as a sniper and their weapon comes nowhere near NATO sniper rifle specs (though with the right ammo you can certainly get 1 MOA accuracy with most rifles - SVDs anyways, out to around 600 meters).
That's why I called them "designated marksmen", not "snipers".
So which is more likely to move? A squad with an SVD/PSL in support or an entire squad with almost the same accuracy and a squad level weapon which typically meets or beats the SVD/PSL. Exactly.
If you could get that accuracy without sacrificing other features important to the weapon (such as, well, reliability), that'd be awesome. Unfortunately, in practice, it's a trade-off. So you have to find some reasonable middle ground. What good is a weapon that can theoretically shoot accurately to 800m, but jams in practice when you actually try it? Or, worse yet, jams when you are face to face with a guy armed with AK?
Now the above is certainly a hyperbole, and I'm not saying that AR is really a jam-o-matic. It clearly is a working tool judging by the American track record of the last two decades. All I'm saying is that it does have some well-known design deficiencies, with known and tested solutions that do not compromise its other advantages (such as superb accuracy or ergonomics) beyond reasonable limits. Given that US military spending, even in peace time, completely dwarfs that of everyone else, it is quite surprising that it can't equip its front-line ground troops - the ones that have the highest likelihood of being shipped back home in body bags - with a true state of the art weapon, best that money can buy. This is especially strange given that US spends obscene amount of money on other expensive military toys, such as F-22, which don't even see (and are unlikely to ever see) real combat!
Re:Gatling, the Dentist (Score:4, Insightful)
You're partially thinking of Dr. Josephus Requa, the dentist who invented an earlier model of the machine gun that never took off. Dr. Gatling (MD, but never practiced) was an inventor by profession.
He's said he thought it'd end all wars, but isn't it just as likely that he built the Gatling gun out of the eternal engineering motivation: because he could? (and because it was cool?)
The rationalization probably came later.
And there I was asking myself why the US' debt was (Score:0, Insightful)
And there I was asking myself why the US' debt was big :D
At one point, you should ask yourselves why and how some illiterate peasants wealding 100$ Kalashnikovs (60yo tech mind you) can defeat the most expensive army in the known universe ...
Re:Also there is simply a weight consideration (Score:3, Insightful)
I own guns that shoot the 7.62x39 (M1A) and the 7.62x39 (SKS) so I assure you I know the difference in the bullet size. I also own an AR-15 that shoots 5.56. I know from personal experience that the SKS will shoot much further than the AR-15, out to 600m accurately and out to 800m at an area. The AR-15 will not shoot that far.
If your AR has a 16" barrel, then I can believe that, given that SKS has 20.5". If you do have a full-length AR, then either you have some one very special SKS on your hands, or one very bad AR. Most likely the latter, given that any decent AR most definitely should be able to shoot accurately out to 600m and beyond.
On the whole, in terms of sheer distance, a 7.62x39 cannot outshoot a 5.56 due to simple physics - the velocity of 5.56 is over 25% higher, so it will simply fly further for the same amount of drop. In terms of accuracy, a faster bullet is also generally better.
As far as your comparisons in kinetic energy, that last 300 J must really make a difference.
The difference WRT effect on hard cover is not due to 300J difference kinetic energy, it's due to the weight of the round. 5.56 simply fragments before it can do any serious damage there. Soviet 5.45 does that as well, and it's a common complaint there also. The real question is, how often you need to do that...
It is worth noting, though, that human body does not have the same consistency as brick or concrete, so ballistic effects there are vastly different, and that fragmentation actually helps much more than it hurts - so the (fragmenting) 5.56 FMJ round can easily do more damage than 7.62x39 FMJ which just flies straight through, or, at best, tumbles, enlarging the wound channel slightly. You can still make 7.62 fragment, in which case it'd do even more damage - but it's harder to make it do that reliably because of lower velocity.
Something like 6.8 is the best of both worlds - it's still fast enough to reliably fragment, and with more effect than 5.56 at that.
Anyway, the issue of switching the caliber is very different from the issue of switching the rifle - if you do both, you'd certainly want to do them at the same time, but they are not necessarily equally as useful, and most certainly very different in expenses. If you only change the rifle while retaining 5.56, then you only pay for that - you can still use the ammo produced to date. Even better if you keep the same mags, like HK416 or SCAR. No major changes to logistics. And you can keep the old rifles in reserve, switching gradually - front-line troops first, then support troops deployed in the theater of war, then home troops - over several decades, even, and for some units possibly never (M16 is plenty good for National Guard, for example).
If you change the caliber as well, you still need to do something with the rifles, even if it's not making brand new ones. And you either need to do it all at once, or get the significant added headache of having one more caliber for your supply chain to support. This is especially painful when there's a major ongoing armed conflict overseas.
Re:Miniguns in private hands? (Score:3, Insightful)