Slashdot Mirror

Aside from the behind-the-scenes type stuff, military technology is designed to be simple to use. I hate to make the comparison (Especially with the story about the Japanese investigating computer games) but using some of the more complicated weapons systems is now as easy as playing a computer game. For instance, piloting a helicopter might be hard, but both the apache and the comanche prototype (that was supposedly cancelled - not sure whether to believe that or not, but helis are somewhat deprecated since the proliferation of man-fired rockets) use a cannon that is aimed based on where the pilot turns their head, and which use advanced but automatic optics to allow the pilot to have a view through the opaque portions of the craft, again, simply by looking in that direction. The OICW/M29 is definitely going to be designed to be as easy to use as possible, but it's a fairly sophisticated computer system mated to a short carbine assault rifle with a 20mm cannon/grenade launcher.

The target acquisition / fire control system (TA/FCS) is the most expensive and complicated unit of the whole system, since it must combine day and night vision capabilities, laser rangefinding unit, ballistic computer and various interfaces to the grenade launcher and external systems. It is used to find the targets in any light and weather conditions, determine the range to the target, calculate and display the aiming data, so the grenade or bullet could be fired to the desired point of impact, and then supply the data to the grenade launcher, so the range could be preset into the grenade fuse. In the case of damage to the TA/FCS the 20mm grenade launcher still can be used in the direct impact mode, as well as the rifle part of the system.
(http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm)

It does a hell of a lot, it's definitely to be considered "high tech", but you think they're going to make it hard to use?

Try this briefcase (Scroll down to see pics) and never worry about being mugged for your laptop again!

The reason for this exemption is that the various police associations looked at this and realized what a completely fucking stupid idea it was and wanted to have nothing to do with it.

At the last count, the front line guys in the US military were similarly impressed with the OICW, for not unconnected reasons. And that at least has some major advantages over the current alternatives if it does work...

Oh well. The military knows what they are doing, right?

Isn't this the same military that wants the OICW? (Well, the senior officers seem to, anyway. The guys who are actually going to trust their lives to it don't seem so sure.)

I am 100% sure there's no way the founders of America would support ownership of a weapon that would destroy every single individual in the country, along with the suicide of the owner.

Well, of course not, but where exactly do you draw the line? Pragmatism is batter than the current idealism; you don't really hear anybody bitching about Class III licensed (automatic, suppressed, short-barreled, &c.) weapons, but there's a screaming battle over "assault" rifles even though there's no functional difference between them and semiauto sporting rifles - the HK SL8 is a semiauto version of the G36 assault rifle, minus the flash suppresor and with a modified stock to eliminate the pistol grip, and is a perfectly legal and salalbe sporting rifle. Hell, John and John would have been far more effective with a $400 scoped bolt-action .308, available on the civilian market worldwide.

Built on an MP5 frame, firing .223 rifle ammunition, the HK53. All the compactness of a submachine gun with the firepower of an assault rifle. Id estimate 3 or 6 rounds*spammer^-1 though, both the MP5 and H53 have only 3rd burst or semiauto.

Cue rant . . .

Actually it's the 20mm component of the former Objective Individual Combat Weapon program, part of the Small Arms Master Plan, now dubbed XM29. Essentially this weapon combines a variation on the G36C for underbody (almost a submachinegun) with an overslung semi-automatic 20mm explosive round (grenade, really) that can be set to burst at a given range by pointing at the object to burst upon, then increasing the range up a meter or down a meter.

There are some problems with this when compared to the M16A2 / M203 40mm underslung grenade launcher combination currently in use (or increasingly the less successful M4/M203 combo).

First of all, the 'normal' rifle portion (the G36C) sports a barrel so ridiculously short that the rounds do not exhibit the fragmentation behavior desired. A 10" barrel is insufficient for accelerating a 5.56x45mm round to the point where it can be truly effective in outdoor combat. The M16 family used a 16" barrel for a good reason - there's a full 75~100m/s muzzle velocity advantage over the 11" Colt Commando. Many sections of the Armed Forces have refused to or have been extremely reluctant to adopt the 14" barreled M4 for this same reason. Size does matter here, because longer barrels mean the bullet is in a sealed chamber being accelerated by explosive gases for a longer period of time and 10" is simply not enough.

Beyond this, there are many questions regarding the utility of the 20mm explosive round component itself. Everything from fears regarding any failure of the electronics system to, again, lethality. The single-shot breach loading M203 40mm grenade launchers currently in use provide an effective fatality radius of approximately 5m, and will wound most individuals within 15 meters of impact. The 20mm grenade, however, is the minimum size of projectile which can carry a useful explosive load and is loaded with circuitry to boot. The fatality radius is 1~2m with a 5m wounding radius. On the other hand it is far more accurate than the M203, but US soldiers are nothing if not well trained.

Current plans are for 45,000 units at a cost of $10,000 each (several times the cost of an M16/M203 combo) by 2009, and the general idea currently is to outfit active squads with one such weapon each.

The SAMP also includes a potential replacement for the Mark 19 Automatic Grenade Launcher (uses special high-power 40mm grenades) called the Objective Crew Served Weapon that utilizes 25mm grenades. This one may show significant merit as the possibility of an infantry-portable automatic grenade launcher is simply too good to pass up.

--Ryv

Cue rant . . .

Actually it's the 20mm component of the former Objective Individual Combat Weapon program, part of the Small Arms Master Plan, now dubbed XM29. Essentially this weapon combines a variation on the G36C for underbody (almost a submachinegun) with an overslung semi-automatic 20mm explosive round (grenade, really) that can be set to burst at a given range by pointing at the object to burst upon, then increasing the range up a meter or down a meter.

There are some problems with this when compared to the M16A2 / M203 40mm underslung grenade launcher combination currently in use (or increasingly the less successful M4/M203 combo).

First of all, the 'normal' rifle portion (the G36C) sports a barrel so ridiculously short that the rounds do not exhibit the fragmentation behavior desired. A 10" barrel is insufficient for accelerating a 5.56x45mm round to the point where it can be truly effective in outdoor combat. The M16 family used a 16" barrel for a good reason - there's a full 75~100m/s muzzle velocity advantage over the 11" Colt Commando. Many sections of the Armed Forces have refused to or have been extremely reluctant to adopt the 14" barreled M4 for this same reason. Size does matter here, because longer barrels mean the bullet is in a sealed chamber being accelerated by explosive gases for a longer period of time and 10" is simply not enough.

Beyond this, there are many questions regarding the utility of the 20mm explosive round component itself. Everything from fears regarding any failure of the electronics system to, again, lethality. The single-shot breach loading M203 40mm grenade launchers currently in use provide an effective fatality radius of approximately 5m, and will wound most individuals within 15 meters of impact. The 20mm grenade, however, is the minimum size of projectile which can carry a useful explosive load and is loaded with circuitry to boot. The fatality radius is 1~2m with a 5m wounding radius. On the other hand it is far more accurate than the M203, but US soldiers are nothing if not well trained.

Current plans are for 45,000 units at a cost of $10,000 each (several times the cost of an M16/M203 combo) by 2009, and the general idea currently is to outfit active squads with one such weapon each.

The SAMP also includes a potential replacement for the Mark 19 Automatic Grenade Launcher (uses special high-power 40mm grenades) called the Objective Crew Served Weapon that utilizes 25mm grenades. This one may show significant merit as the possibility of an infantry-portable automatic grenade launcher is simply too good to pass up.

--Ryv

"Given that the M16 and the OICW are both chambered in .223/5.56NATO, there's no way it's going to be good for 1000 meters, as that's a limitation of the cartridge design not the gun. The OICW is also a bullpup design, but still has a short barrel, decreasing maximum effective lethal range. The OICW uses the same magazines as the M16. "

When people are refering to the longer ranges of the OICW over the M16, they are not talking about the .223-calibre firing part of the gun, but the buildt in, computer controlled, automatic 45/20mm grenade launcher.

"The only way I can see a weapon of the same caliber (OICW and M16) having different effective ranges is either one of two things. Charge, or rifling."

Or maybe, the refference to longer ranges was refering to the buildt in 45/20mm grenade launcher?. ;)

I found the original company that was working on the OICW program, since they are currently producing a rifle called the XM29 I would guess they won the contract.

XM29 Page

also an overview of the oicw at hkpro along with some nice photos.

1) No, because it still uses a chemical propellant to accelerate a jacketed lead slug to an appropriate velocity where it will damage it's intended target, vs. a focused light projection device... And it doesn't go phew! :P

2) The article states that the device uses biometric comparisons, where the unique electrical signature generated by the human body is compared against the one that is stored. The students were proving that fingerprint comparison (essentially mathematically comparing points in a pattern) can be (semi) easily faked.

The primary problems I see here are:

1. OS stability (Bmw 745, Windows, anyone?). People (myself included) rely on firearms as a last resort in a situation where lives are at risk. Do you really want your last chance dependant on a piece of software (Insert offshore coding joke here)?

2. Magazine replacement. Most of the pre-loaded barrel designs the have been brought to market have either fallen into an extremely tight niche, or have failed altogether. I.E.:
H&K P11 Underwater Pistol
Pancor Jackhammer
Major exception is Metal Storm Tech

3. As someone pointed out you can cover up the camera hole, also what happens at night? Dark, muzzle flash, white balance etc. etc.

4. Planning GPS? GPS reception inside sucks (Urban ops/home defense). Especially if you're trying to make this thing as compact as possible and keep it balanced. You're going to have to sacrifice antenna and component placement and size.

5. Battery life... Yeah, watch batteries last a long time, but you're not running sensors, camera's, etc. etc. with them.

6. Memory capacity. I know when I go to the range I usually drop about 200+ rounds through a couple of handguns... How many pictures, at what res, + time info, + gps info is this thing going to store, and if it does keep a few then overwrite the oldest, people can just take it to the range after they did something bad with it and kill (hehe) the evidence.

7. Accuracy - I don't even want to touch this one until after I shoot one... Firearms have longer barrels for a reason.

8. Programming - Dealers are going to have to be able to reprogram the signature it accepts for operation, and probably gunsmiths as well. It's not hard to get gunsmithing tools.
We're all geeks here, how long do you think any type of data security will really hold up on one of these?

I can't remember the rest of them but I had a couple more as well... I'm too tired I guess.

No, it's called the OICW.

OICW

Who has an estimate on how long it will take for the Army to outfit its troops with anti-personnel rocket launchers?

OICW - Entering service late this decade You can chain fire grenades, set them to explode on impact, just after impact (for penetrating windows) or at a set distance (for exploding over people's heads).

Alternatively, if you want a BIG F***ING GUN, nothing says I love you quite like a GMG (Grenade Machine Gun) - yeah, that's right, a Grenade MG - 40mmx53 grenades, 350 cyclic rate. If I remember rightly, it comes with an optional nightsight (Oh so useful if 350 grenades a minute don't light the target up enough for you)

Who has an estimate on how long it will take for the Army to outfit its troops with anti-personnel rocket launchers?

OICW - Entering service late this decade You can chain fire grenades, set them to explode on impact, just after impact (for penetrating windows) or at a set distance (for exploding over people's heads).

Alternatively, if you want a BIG F***ING GUN, nothing says I love you quite like a GMG (Grenade Machine Gun) - yeah, that's right, a Grenade MG - 40mmx53 grenades, 350 cyclic rate. If I remember rightly, it comes with an optional nightsight (Oh so useful if 350 grenades a minute don't light the target up enough for you)

I just watched the Discovery channel about the new weapons being developed now for the military in a few years.

The OCSW [slideshow] (Objective Crew Served Weapon). It's a newly developed weapon that fires 20mm specially designed air-bursting rounds. The weapon is designed like the .50 calibur M2 machine gun made popular in combat in the past few decades. Unlike the old M2, it can easily be carried and setup by two people, the gun box can be loaded on either side depending on who's loading.

What makes this gun so different and effective is that you can aim anywhere and make the rounds explode before it hits a wall or the earth. It does this when the soldier fires, the microprocessor in the gun electronically programs the bullet to explode in a certain amount of time based on the distance it'll need to travel based on it's discovered velocity. If that sounds trivial, you should know that shrapnel from the exploded round can be much more deadly than if the bullet did hit without exploding.

This can be very useful if a guy is behind a wall or window, the OCSW gun is set to a range to just after the wall and the bullet explodes right in their face.

They also make a regular assault gun, the OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) that actually fires both the air-busting 20mm rounds and the 5.56mm NATO rounds that have been used in previous weapons. It combines the air-busting capability in the stationary gun, but you can take the 5.56 mm assault rifle part and you have the lightest machine gun ever made. which beats the AR-15 and it's derivatives like the M16-A2 used currently by the US military.

There are plenty of places to get information, HK has some good coverage with pictures of the gun, the ammo and some diagrams of how it's able to program it's mid-air explosions.

Go to google.com and learn something today.

Were those bullpup shotguns something like this?

(On Topic- somehow.. because its used underwater, like a ship?)
Wow! beats the heck out of the P11, thats for sure.