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)
Re: (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.
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:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Sounds like you two know a hell of a lot more about pricing on assault rifles than I ever will.
Basically, I treated it like everything else the government buys for me with my money: I googled it, found the highest price and then added about 100-200% for an estimate. Guess it doesn't transfer well to all military expenditures.
Re:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, I treated it like everything else the government buys for me with my money: I googled it, found the highest price and then added about 100-200% for an estimate. Guess it doesn't transfer well to all military expenditures.
Your methods are quite sound, I work for a major company mostly (almost completely) fueled by the defense industry and I can say that I have no reason to believe our government gets any type of discount whatsoever, foreign governments do, but it's widely known that Uncle Sam doesn't mind paying MSRP.
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.
Why? I'm not trying to be a smartass but why would the government get 10-20% off? I've never seen an instance where a government organisation got a "bulk discount"
Re: (Score:3)
It's been a while, but unless things have changed, if you sell any product to the government, according to the law you are required to charge the government no more than what you charged under the best discount to any other party for the same quantity and product. This affects the legal jargon involved in every commercial as well as government sale - if there is a special price to any other party (such as a contractor who is using the equipment to write software for the company) the sale must be constructe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? I'm not trying to be a smartass but why would the government get 10-20% off? I've never seen an instance where a government organisation got a "bulk discount"
What do you mean you've never seen a government bulk discount? Happens all the time. For any item where the number needed by the government is in the thousands or more, you can bet they're paying less per unit than you would be if you wanted to purchase just one of the same item from a store. It's no different than when big companies buy in bulk.
Besides which, for certain firearms, the cost is driven up by the strong regulations in place. For anything fully automatic, the only option if you want to lega
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In my basic military training, I used to work in a position with access to pricing lists (not US, though). I can tell that while most stuff was incredibly expensive, guns and rifles where actually pretty cheap. $800 for an assault rifle sounds pretty reasonable (without any extra accessories, of course).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The basic M16 is well under a thousand dollars. But a fully tricked-out M16, with a range-finding night vision scope mounted on it, costs a lot more than a basic M16! On the gripping hand, not many troops get the fully tricked-out version.
I read some articles about the OICW, and I was dubious about the cost. Some OICW apologists argued that it wasn't really going to be that much more expensive than the M16, and they used the most expensive M16 numbers they could find. IIRC it was on the order of $10,000
How much are the bullets? (Score:3, Funny)
Is it like the inkjet scam? $35,000 for the rifle then $200 for each bullet...?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
is there such a thing as an "accurised" M16? I.e. someone paying a fair amount of money to an armourer to tune a standard rifle for higher accuracy?
Yes, there are accurized AR-15s. Fully floated handguards, Kreiger stainless steel barrels with 1:7 or 1:8 twist, 1/4 MOA iron sights, and a two stage trigger. Mine also have additional lead weights in the handguards and stock to reduce shake. They are generally used for NRA High Power matches, and they cost about 2x what a standard AR costs.
Two manufacturers that come to mind are Compass Lake Engineering and White Oak Precision
m
Re:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:5, Informative)
I was in Iraq way back when it was still a war. I was an infantryman, and got to do all the fun infantry stuff you do in a shooting war (sarcasm intended). My personal weapon was an M249, but I trained and shot with M-16 variants my whole career. In an 18-month combat tour I only ever saw one M-4 jam. That was due to a double-feed because the FNG private liked to practically bathe his magazines in CLP. It's been a long time since the M-16 was introduced, and for some time the weak link in proper weapon operation has been the individual soldiers own PMCS. If you don't take care of your weapon, no shit, it's going to jam.
Except for calves and forearms, I also never saw anyone shot with a 5.56 round just ignore it and keep fighting. Hit someone anywhere near center mass and they all go down. They also tend not to die right away, and the screaming and gurgling definitely has a negative impact on their buddies' fighting effectiveness.
And the Army does still use M-14s for designated marksmen. They're great weapons in that role, and the round does have more energy at range than the 5.56, but they're heavy, unwieldy, and useless in close combat. Which you can't avoid in Iraq. Still, some did prefer it; to each his own, I suppose. Just don't believe the 'M-16s are plastic toys' myth.
[semantic mode]BTW, the 5.56 is a NATO standard rifle round.[/semantic mode]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hear, hear! I was also an Infantryman in Iraq in 2004-2005 (central Baghdad and the re-invasion of Fallujah) and my weapon fired every time I pulled the trigger because I took care of it.
Also, everyone that I saw who was hit in the torso or head with a 5.56 went down, period. Varmint gun my ass.
Re:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hope It Helps End the Fighting (Score:5, Interesting)
Rounds are going to be relatively expensive yes, but it's not as if you fire the thing full auto.
How it changes the game in that enemies behind hard cover - who might otherwise engage you in a protracted firefight - will lose the benefit of that cover.
It's in service now with the 101st airborne apparently, so I'm sure we'll shortly find out whether it's the exceptionally useful tool it appears to promise to be.
Does it Jam in Hot Dusty Conditions? (Score:2)
Slashdot is hardly the only news source with Slashvertisements - Fox is big on them as well, and the military-industrial complex just loves that kind of thing. And some high-tech weapons are actually effective, while some fail badly in real environments; back during Vietnam, US Army rifles would jam a lot, while AK47s that were dirt-cheap to make usually didn't, even though they weren't as accurate.
Re:Does it Jam in Hot Dusty Conditions? (Score:5, Informative)
That's true to some extent (especially where aircraft are concerned), but the rifle analogy is not quite correct.
In Vietnam, American troops were armed with the recently-developed M-16, early versions of which frequently jammed. They jammed because the rifle was prototyped using ammunition packed with pellet-shaped nitrocellulose gunpowder (which worked fine in bad conditions), but mass-produced using stick-type nitrocellulose/nitrogylcerin gunpowder (which fouled the barrel if the weapon was not cleaned regularly). The lack of cleaning supplies and instructions for troops didn't help matters either.
Once this design flaw was identified, the powder was changed, the barrel was lined with chrome, and troops were given instructions and tools to clean the weapons. Afterward, they became much more reliable in jungle conditions.
Re:Does it Jam in Hot Dusty Conditions? (Score:5, Informative)
In Vietnam, American troops were armed with the recently-developed M-16, early versions of which frequently jammed. They jammed because the rifle was prototyped using ammunition packed with pellet-shaped nitrocellulose gunpowder (which worked fine in bad conditions), but mass-produced using stick-type nitrocellulose/nitrogylcerin gunpowder (which fouled the barrel if the weapon was not cleaned regularly). The lack of cleaning supplies and instructions for troops didn't help matters either.
Once this design flaw was identified, the powder was changed, the barrel was lined with chrome, and troops were given instructions and tools to clean the weapons. Afterward, they became much more reliable in jungle conditions.
This apology for the M-16 just misses the forest for the trees. The reason the M-16 is so sensitive to the type of gunpowder used is because it uses direct impingement [wikipedia.org] gas operation. Note that most other common military rifle families don't use this design. Why don't they? Because it's less reliable!
Also there is simply a weight consideration (Score:5, Interesting)
If you study guns, you'll notice that the most reliable ones fire larger, heavier, rounds and themselves are larger and heavier. Good reasons for this:
1) The tolerances don't have to be as tight. When things are large, there's more room for play. A bit of dirt doesn't matter nearly so much.
2) More recoil force and/or gas. When there's more pushing back against the action, it cycles better. Also you can load up heavier springs, to push it back harder, again making it more reliable.
That's what the M2 is still one of the most reliable guns out there. Shoots a big heavy round and is built with some room for error in it.
Wonderful, but you have to consider carried weight. Troops have to slug a lot around, gun and ammo weight matters. While it might sound nice to say "Just give them bigger guns with bigger ammo!" that isn't necessarily so practical.
Accuracy also comes in to play. Part of the AK's reliability comes form the action. If you've ever watched it in slow motion it positively slams shut, even flexing and vibrating a little. Well enough but at what cost? The cost is accuracy. It is not a good gun at range. "Spray and pray," are very much the operative words. The M4/M16, however, are much better. They aren't quite rifle accurate, but they aren't bad.
It is a tradeoff, and it is easy to pull the "grass is greener" type thing, look at the other gun and say "Well clearly that is better!" However if you used that, well then you might have a different opinion.
Re:Also there is simply a weight consideration (Score:5, Interesting)
The tolerances don't have to be as tight. When things are large, there's more room for play. A bit of dirt doesn't matter nearly so much.
Larger caliber helps with that, but it's not a requirement. The caliber of AK-74 is smaller than that of M16, but the latter has looser tolerances, and is generally more reliable as a result.
Part of the AK's reliability comes form the action. If you've ever watched it in slow motion it positively slams shut, even flexing and vibrating a little. Well enough but at what cost? The cost is accuracy. It is not a good gun at range. "Spray and pray," are very much the operative words.
It's accurate enough at most realistic ranges of engagement, especially AK-74: you can reliably hit man-sized targets at 200-300m. E.g. Russian soldiers are most certainly not told to "spray and pray" at a distance, but rather drilled largely the same way as you see US troops with M16 - well-aimed single shots.
This isn't to say that accuracy can't be better, or that this isn't useful. Most NATO weapons are more accurate than AKs. Thing is, most of them are also more reliable than M16, if not to AK standard - and that is largely due to looser tolerances (again, not as much as AK, but still), and overall different design (gas piston vs direct impingement).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's accurate enough at most realistic ranges of engagement, especially AK-74: you can reliably hit man-sized targets at 200-300m. E.g. Russian soldiers are most certainly not told to "spray and pray" at a distance, but rather drilled largely the same way as you see US troops with M16 - well-aimed single shots.
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. In Vietnam, the weapons were extremely well matched because of the extremely short engagement ranges. Whereas, on a more traditional, non-urban battlefield, the upper hand easily goes to the M-16.
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), expec
Re: (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
Re:Also there is simply a weight consideration (Score:5, Interesting)
That is true, but it is unclear how useful it is to give a weapon with such range to every single infantryman.
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.
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.
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. They also used a larger, more powerful bullet (.30-06/7.62), which made those distances even more practical than attempting to do so with a 5.56.
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. That means I stand a good chance of completely stopping your force while receiving minimal causalities on my side.
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.
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). 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.
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.
I was very careful to include that phraseology. ;) But, tactics have also been adapted to avoid extended, unsupported battles. I'm not saying the weapon never jams. I know it does. But, largely the worst case scenarios are avoided by a combination of mixed tactics; primarily including rapid deployment and extraction.
Re: (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 cert
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Different theaters of operation had different experiences. Remember, in the Pacific, they made do with the M1 Carbine, which was basically a .30 pistol round. In other places, 600-800 yards were common ranges. The biggest motivator was that they learned most people missed beyond 300-400 meters and as such, wasted a lot of heavy ammo. The solution was to create a smaller, lighter cartridge which allows for much more ammo to be carried and for its effective range to be more in line with what the typical soldi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Standard annual Marine Corps rifle qualification requires 10 shots from the prone position at a man sized target from 500m with iron sights. I used to put 7-9 in the black every year. Even the less capable shots in the units I was in would put at least 50% o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the statement you replied to:
"The caliber of AK-74 is smaller than that of M16"
You missed the part about the numbers, and therefore, you were wrong. Own it. Learn and get better. Or continue to be a doorknob. Your call.
Re: (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 d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once this design flaw was identified, the powder was changed, the barrel was lined with chrome, and troops were given instructions and tools to clean the weapons. Afterward, they became much more reliable in jungle conditions.
Yep, except that they aren't being used in jungle conditions today - and guess what [murdoconline.net]?..
Maybe, before they make more new shiny $25K toys for the infantry, they should take care of the basics first. The only countries using AR family of guns other than US are those which are able to purchase it from US for cheap or free. And no other infantry rifle in military use around the world uses direct impingement gas system.
Re:Does it Jam in Hot Dusty Conditions? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it was indeed a rather extreme test, which explains why the difference in numbers is so big. Thing is, it doesn't go away in other conditions, it just isn't quite as pronounced.
When it comes to "typical operating environment", you can't do better than ask the grunts in the field [defenseindustrydaily.com]:
"I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too."
“The M4 is overall an excellent weapon, however the flaw of its sensitivity to dirt and powder residue needs to be corrected. True to fact, cleaning will help. Daily assigned tasks, and nonregular hours in tactical situations do not always warrant the necessary time required for effective cleaning."
“Dusty, desert conditions do require vigilance in weapons maintenance However, it is imperative to remember that at the time of the attack, the 507th had spent more than two days on the move, with little rest and time to conduct vehicle repair and recovery operations.”
The official Army position is:
"M16s and M4s “functioned reliably” in the combat zone as long as “soldiers conducted daily operator maintenance and applied a light coat of lubricant."
which is pretty much confirming their point. It is a high-maintenance weapon, which is a major issue for main infantry rifle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yes. I also love this technical note [armalite.com] from ArmaLite, and specifically this bit:
Some of the worst cleaning practices are found among those expected to know best how
to maintain rifles: the military. Especially in peacetime and in garrison locations, military
procedures are too often focused not on cleaning properly, but on cleaning totally. That’s
because of tradition and the sad fact that it’s hard to make a judgement call that a rifle is
cleaned and preserved well enough for reliable service.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Once the trigger is pulled and the round leaves the barrel, a computer chip inside the projectile
People don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Or is it bullet programmers that kill people? This is only going to get more confusing, folks.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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:5, Informative)
What this weapon will replace is the need for many mortar fire missions by 81mm mortars (and possibly the squad or platoon 60mm mortar).
Mortars are used when a very rapid response is required in order to combat ground units that are firing on relatively open friendly units from relatively defensible positions. I say again, a very rapid response. They always fire at a high trajectory so can be dropped behind walls and even an advancing mortar group can be on the target or at least adjusting on, within five minutes or less from the time the incoming fire mission request is received. If the mortars are already stationary (e.g. they are in a fire base), then they can be 'on' even faster... faster than artillery can get on target. I've heard quotes that mortars were the most dangerous weapon on the battle field in both Vietnam and WWII; accounting for more killed and wounded than other weapons.
As to what you are worried about... collateral damage i.e. civilians. Mortars are fired from up to 5km away. Each tube has a 'beaten zone' where their bombs fall, shaped like a football. For an 81mm mortar, the beaten zone can be up to 100m long by 40 or 50 metres wide. Combine that with three other mortars in a mortar group and you have a wide area of damage (hence the term 'area suppression weapon'). Don't believe what you see in the movies... 81mm mortar HE has a kill radius of 40 metres. *kill* radius.
So if a squad/section, platoon, company, or even one or two soldiers are under fire and need a fire mission to save their asses, they call for a fire mission (which will usually be mortars if they are in range). If they are in a built up area and there are civilians around, they are likely to be hit unless they are underground. If artillery receives the fire mission, the amount of damage they will cause is at least double.
So now we have this infantry carried version of a shoulder fired light automatic mortar. To me, this is a better description of what it is. Since the target is directly sighted by the person firing, it is more likely that they will be able to hit the intended target quickly and more effectively. And since the blast area is smaller, collateral damage is for a certainly going to be far, far less than calling in fire missions from kilometres distant guns firing shells with explosive power orders of magnitude more powerful than those of this new weapon.
So no, it doesn't preclude you from having civilian casualties. The only way to preclude this is to never have war. Being that we are humans, you can have high hopes of this, but this will only happen when Santa Claus delivers it. However, if I were a civilian close to the fighting, I would rather have these fired when one side is trying to suppress fire (or take out the enemy).
As for the 60mm mortar, it almost certainly will be replaced by this in many armies, but I have heard, not all. I think it is not a direct replacement and getting rid of the 60 is a bad idea... something akin to removing the automatic cannon from the design of the F4 Phantom fighters; mainly because the prevailing rational that dog fights were a thing of the past since missiles would do it all. We now know that this is ridiculous, and they put the cannons back into the planes. i.e. I think the 60 could make a come back into armies that remove them thinking this is a direct replacement. Reason being is that this weapon likely won't provide as effective a solution when you want to drop some bombs behind a building or some other application that requires an extremely high elevation/trajectory. But this new weapon will be excellent to hit enemy behind the closest wall or other similar cover.
Killing people seldom Ends the Fighting (Score:2)
Sure, sometimes you can kill all your enemies without making far more of them in the process; that occasionally even works when two governments are fighting each other. But if people are fighting you because they're pissed off that you're invading their country and attacking their culture and you killed their cousin, killing them is just going to get more people with dead cousins pissed off at you.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nevermind that bin Laden was extensively trained by the CIA.
There's ample evidence [wikipedia.org] that this claim lies somewhere between grossly misstated and total bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Afghanistan and Iraq are, tactically, very different. In afghanistan you're regularly seeing engagement ranges (sniping basically) of ~2Km, Iraq that happens, but you're mostly seeing more 300m engagement range. The relatively close quarters stuff is happening in afghanistan too though. 800m seems like a good number, it's probably not all that hard to make one that does 800m or 300m effectively, but to do much more than that gets dicey, and it's about on par with the trusty ole m16. It's almost certainl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bingo! Somebody who gets it.
Infantry forces do like to have new tech as an option, but they also favour holding on to their existing hardware. Part of this is adherence to tradition, but another element is reliability. If $gun_type_x works just fine in it's role, the troops know how to use it, and no external circumstance has drastically changed, why replace it with $gun_type_y?
What's far more common is for new tech to build on or improve existing tech. If you look at the difference between a Vietnam er
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Battlefield 2142 Assault kit rockets (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been using these for years to rape snipers and campers. One of the most versatile weapons in the game.
Forget the cost of the gun (Score:2)
how much is the cost of the ammo?
"Once the trigger is pulled and the round leaves the barrel, a computer chip inside the projectile communicates exactly how far it has traveled"
That doesn't sound cheap at all.
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.
Re:Forget the cost of the gun (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun [wikipedia.org]
Re:Forget the cost of the gun (Score:5, Funny)
how much is the cost of the ammo?
"Once the trigger is pulled and the round leaves the barrel, a computer chip inside the projectile communicates exactly how far it has traveled"
That doesn't sound cheap at all.
It costs four hundred thousand dollars to fire this weapon... for twelve seconds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The United States is leveraging its ultimate secret weapon: Deficit Spending!
Re: (Score:2)
Russians work for vodka and black bread; they'll have an inferior but good-enough weapon out in 2 years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Koreans already have quite comparable weapon [wikipedia.org] in service, apparently ~3 less expensive.
Defilade (Score:2, Informative)
noun
the protection of a position, vehicle, or troops against enemy observation or gunfire.
Re:Defilade (Score:5, Funny)
I've found it amusing how much French there is in the military shibboleth/jargon. No one bothered renaming defilade as "freedom cover".
Re:Defilade (Score:4, Funny)
/ducks
Just like BF2142 (Score:2)
Re:Just like BF2142 (Score:5, Funny)
This does however expose a tactical weakness of the XM25 - the lack of good, flat mousing surfaces on the modern battlefield.
I'd like one... but too pricey. (Score:2)
I see that there's chips in the exploding projectiles. That's very awesome, that basically allows you to more or less fire into a specific area without needing full (or even partial) visibility of the target.
Which raises my concern - shootin' off silicon explodey is awesome on paper and in Halo, but now we're talking deadly force on a target that we may not have completely identified. I can see where this helps our soldiers avoid being shot at, but I can also see where this decrease in need of visual confir
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
Target Engagement System (Score:2)
Seriously dudes... "gun".
Yet they still use the m16? (Score:2)
They have spent so much on this weapon and yet their standard issue rifle is horrible compared to more modern (hell even three decades ago) weapons.
How many AK-47s is that? (Score:2)
Re:How many AK-47s is that? (Score:2)
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...
So basically a very expensive K11? nice (Score:4, Informative)
more useful against us... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wouldn't this weapon be more useful against an occupying force, than for them? That is, wouldn't urban "insurgents" have more and faster access to mostly-enclosed structures, while the occupiers would tend more to ad-hoc cover?
I suspect that we may regret introducing this, once it's copied and sold cheap by certain other nations which will go unnamed... Maybe it'll give us the advantage in a burned-out dust bowl like Afghanistan, but it would hurt us somewhere like Iraq.
Please correct me, I'm just a cynical jerk, not a tactician.
OICW (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not an expert on military stuff, but I have been interested in this and I have read articles about it over the years.
This came out of research that started many years ago, the OICW [wikipedia.org] program.
The original vision was that every soldier might get a fancy grenade launcher like this as his/her primary weapon. But you don't dare use a grenade if an enemy is at very close range (perhaps attacking with something as simple as a pointed stick), so the OICW was supposed to have a close-range, defensive capacity: a "kinetic energy" weapon, i.e., bullets. The result was a heavy, complex, expensive weapon that didn't make anyone happy.
But I guess the research to produce the fancy grenade launcher paid off, and here is the result.
I was always troubled by the 25mm projectile size. Can a 25mm projectile contain enough explosives to produce the desired effect when it air-bursts? I guess so, if they are deploying it.
For general issue, it will continue to be the M16 family for the foreseeable future. I have read the occasional article about the military starting to wish it had a rifle of intermediate calibre between the 5.56mm of the M16 and the 7.62mm used before the M16. In desert engagements, ranges might be farther than the M16 can comfortably handle; in jungle terrain, foliage can sometimes deflect the 5.56 bullet. But nobody wants to try to generally issue the 7.62 mm again, as it has much more recoil than the 5.56, and it would be a pain to introduce some sort of new ammo.
But now this new, fancy grenade launcher looks like it shall fill in the gap: it shoots a relatively massive projectile at up to 500 metres point effect, and up to 1000 meters area effect (source: Wikipedia). The ammo will be much more expensive than 5.56 ammo, and it will need batteries and special training besides; but if it really works as promised, it should be very cost-effective. (Even if you spent many dollars in ammo on attacking the enemy, if it decisively stops the attack from the enemy before he inflicts casualties, you have come out ahead.)
As I said, I am no kind of expert and I welcome corrections if I said anything wrong here.
steveha
Alternative headline (Score:2)
In State Capitalist Russia (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGS-17 [wikipedia.org]
With 30 rounds of linked ammunition Soviet-designed automatic grenade launcher has range of 1700 m.
Not as sexy as the US version but wall, village and enemy combatants cannot hide.
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.
Re:Half a billion dollars (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Correct perspective: This is a cost SAVINGS device (Score:5, Insightful)
Gatling, the Dentist (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Costs + "How Revolutionary?" (Score:5, Informative)
The cost of keeping men in theater is so great that if this (or any) weapon reduced the length of the conflict by 1%, it will likely have paid for itself. The real issue is whether the conflict can be solved by killing people.
Likewise, the cost of recruiting, training, and maintaining a soldier is so large that if this weapon saves some lives and prevents some injuries, it will pay for itself.
As far as how "revolutionary" the system is, well, I can't say for sure because I'm not using one. I'm guessing that this weapon will be issued to the guy in the team who would normally be carrying the M16/M4 with the M203 on it. The M203 is reasonably effective for firing on enemies behind cover. When I had the chance to fire one in Basic Training, I could very reliably put a round through a window out to about 100 meters. Landing a round a couple meters behind a berm or small wall was a bit more tricky but definitely doable. The sighting system on the XM25, the much flatter trajectory, and the air-burst feature should make these kinds of shots much much easier. It will also allow a soldier to shoot from the prone position, which isn't so easy with the M203. The important thing about this weapon is the range. Being about to put those grenade rounds out to 800 meters is a big advance over 150M with the M203.
I haven't shot or handled one of these weapons, but I can imagine firing one. What I imagine is something similar to the feeling of firing a M2 or Mk19-- my feeling was 'Holy shit! There's nowhere to hide..." That's what I can imagine with this weapon.
hard to see how this works (Score:4, Interesting)
The projectile is traveling say 1000 feet per second ( let's say that the target is 500m away starting behind a long stone wall ), then the projectile explodes. To kill someone it just passed, it will have to fire lots of large fragments backward and down ( or backward and sideways - if person is standing around the corner of a building ) at at least 1000-2000 feet / second to be lethal.
The physics on this is tricky. To do this, you need to meet the "for every action, an opposite and equal reaction" law. This means something of equal mass will fly forward at ~ 3,000 ft/sec ( this is wasted material not being aimed at anything except unsuspecting persons in the distance ) . In the end, you are talking about a round with what? maybe 20 fragments ( to increase the odds of hitting something ) and each fragment will have to 1) fly fast enough to penetrate and ideally cause hydrostatic shock and 2) be heavy enough to do damage. If the rounds are too big and heavy, a single gunner will have trouble firing the weapon ( bruising on the shoulder ) and won't be able to carry many rounds because of the weight.
For close range targets - 100m, the round is traveling at perhaps 2000 feet per second. Even if this thing blows up over someone's head, it seem most of the blast is going to continue forward, not towards the person behind the wall. Perhaps they hope the concussion wave will be strong enough to be lethal. A very high percentage of the metal fragments should blow forward due to the already high velocity of the round.
Keep in mind, this round is spinning, so the blast will go in all directions. It is not possible to tell the bullet to fire downwards when over the target.
note: a 22 cal bullet fires at bout 800-1200 feet per second. An M15, the standard round for the USMC, fires at about 2,700 to 3,500 feet per second and can have a range out to about 800 meters.
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 physic
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in mind, this round is spinning, so the blast will go in all directions. It is not possible to tell the bullet to fire downwards when over the target.
Actually seems quite possible - if it spins fast enough (and it does count the spins very precisely already), the "window" of effective fire happening once per revolution might be enough. The hard part would be making a shaped charge with fragments on one side while carefully maintaining stability. But as a bonus it could be also more effective when firing sideways, behind a corner.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The projectile is traveling say 1000 feet per second ( let's say that the target is 500m away starting behind a long stone wall ), then the projectile explodes. To kill someone it just passed, it will have to fire lots of large fragments backward and down ( or backward and sideways - if person is standing around the corner of a building ) at at least 1000-2000 feet / second to be lethal.
The physics on this is tricky. To do this, you need to meet the "for every action, an opposite and equal reaction" law. This means something of equal mass will fly forward at ~ 3,000 ft/sec ( this is wasted material not being aimed at anything except unsuspecting persons in the distance ) . In the end, you are talking about a round with what? maybe 20 fragments ( to increase the odds of hitting something ) and each fragment will have to 1) fly fast enough to penetrate and ideally cause hydrostatic shock and 2) be heavy enough to do damage....
This thing is throwing a small anti-personnel grenade (similar to the kind people throw by hand, but smaller) and will be designed similarly.
A modern anti-personnel grenade weighing 132 g (like the XM25) will have something like 30 g of high explosive, 70 g of fragments (a very high explosive/fragment ratio) and will propel them at 5000-6000 ft/sec, a kinetic energy per gram perhaps 10 times what a combat round has at range. The fragments themselves probably only weigh around 50 milligrams so over 1000 of t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice... (Score:5, Funny)
.
They likely won't use it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Weapon is more capable than article indicates (Score:5, Informative)
To my mind, this capability is in fact far more important than the 'shoot behind walls' factor. Honestly, for $35,000 you can carry around something capable of blowing UP the wall and the people behind it.
Where is my powered armor? (Score:4, Interesting)
Want to carry lots of heavy rounds and have high mobility in an urban setting? It's almost 2011, where is my fucking POWERED ARMOR!?
Ok maybe they aren't as practical in the so called "real world" but the terrorists will be so shit scarred they'll give up immediately!
We have had... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that it's out of the development/prototype phase and now into actual deployment. It's not new, it's just new to the field. I don't know specifically about the XM25 but a lot of places experimenting with new weapons have been concerned about the mass, and desert (i.e. heat and sand) performance, which delayed them somewhat.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if it's still the XM25.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you're thinking of the XM29 OICW? That's where I first saw this concept, back in the 90s. Apparently they scrapped the dual weapon concept (rifle + grenade launcher) and just kept the interesting bit that goes boom.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? As another poster pointed out an M-16 can approach 30k as it is. Also their gear is really not cheap. All in all it costs far more than their salary to equip a soldier, never mind the costs of training them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As another poster pointed out an M-16 can approach 30k as it is.
Don't believe everything you read on /.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's okay that a solider could be out there wielding a rifle that is worth more than his yearly salary.
Equipment is cheap, training is expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/oct/04/cost-equip-us-soldier-17500-please/ [abqtrib.com]
Looks like it was about 17.5k in 2007.....
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like those fighter pilots who fly planes worth about 500x their salary?
Re: (Score:2)
Peace through excessive violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even assuming that you aren't a loon, if we didn't invade Afghanistan, the CIA would not bring in that revenue, pushing down your savings number.