Slashdot Mirror
US Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' $35,000 Rifle
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."
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.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
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.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
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 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
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I've found it amusing how much French there is in the military shibboleth/jargon. No one bothered renaming defilade as "freedom cover".
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
We've been taking out enemies in cover with TOW missiles. They cost $180,000 each, and you need to fire two to make sure a building is clear. This weapon costs 1/5 the price of a SINGLE TOW missile, is reusable and man portable. This means no need for an attack helicopter ($3000 or more per HOUR to FLY) AT4 Rocket is $1500 each use, and causes too much damage in urban fighting. This is the field mortar evolved, and it will change combat forever.
You're aware that Mr Gatling, a dentist by trade, designed the crank machine gun in the hope that it would end wars and killing... how'd that work out?
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.
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.
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"
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.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
...but it ain't no Zorg ZF-1
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
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 gas operation. Note that most other common military rifle families don't use this design. Why don't they? Because it's less reliable!
Are you adequate?
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.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
Who's surprised the word for "something to hide behind" is french?
/ducks
-Steve http://www.stevennicholson.com
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I was a supply Marine, I remember looking up the M-16 while in supply school. I remember it being just under $500. That is for the bare minimum basic M-16 A2, and was about six years ago.
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:
"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.
This does however expose a tactical weakness of the XM25 - the lack of good, flat mousing surfaces on the modern battlefield.
Who is John Cabal?
... Rifle grenades for a loooooong time and cover is still as important as ever. The important new features for the XM-25 are range (800m is double the range of a typical 40mm grenade launcher) and its airburst capability, sustained fire and relative ease of use. Using smaller grenades also means reduced damage, a desirable feature in CQB. However, there are and there will be countermeasures deployed: the device needs its laser rangefinder, so expect the use of particulate smoke to make ranging difficult. Like in all warfare conditions, the best defence is offence so if I expect my forces to go against XM-25 armed troops I'll have snipers deployed to take out soldiers carrying it - hopefully eliminating the weapon as well. It's a nice advantage to have but only the Nazi elite believed in miracle weapons to win the war, and watch where it has led them. Aggressive tactics and adaptability trump any technological wonder. The Russian campaign in WW2 should have taught us that, but I guess the iWar generation has taken over and will need some blood by the megagallon to understand it. I'd like to have one of those in my arsenal, but to believe one weapon will change the face of warfare is naive. Not even nukes did that.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Someone's been watching too many movies.
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]
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!