New High Tech Army "Rifle" ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
15lbs? Damn I whined like an old hound dog when I had to carry my M203 on 20-mile road-marches. What about going airborne with that monster? The weight of ammo? Ack Ack

It's pathetic the amount of range time I got in the service (or lack there of). I thought it was pretty bad and I was an 11B Airborne Ranger. Imagine the regular troops? Hell in basic training, I was scared for my life the way some of the boys shot.

Thank god for all the armored vehicles and bombers. If I had to do a ground war with my fellow troops, I would definitely die from friendly fire. I worked in 6-8 man teams with the rangers. We did a lot of training exercise but hell, we still needed more range time!!! Nothing beats good ole fashion practice.

These new space guns are great ideas. The problem is getting the idea into practicality. I just do not see this happening with 18, 19, 20 etc year troops trying to learn to shoot the first time. Finally, learn how to shoot with an A2. Then learn how to operate an electronic assault rifle? Come'on Uncle Sam

What happens if the IC goes out? What happens if you blow a resistor? It's not like you can perform a field functions check with the electronics.

------------------
Svt
RKBA!
Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars, NRA, GOA
My Website

"Rangers Lead the Way"
 
Chief of Staff expands on Army Vision http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Jan2000/a20000131shinsekireserve.html
by Staff Sgt. Jack Siemieniec

WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Jan. 31, 2000) - "Chief, are you really going to a wheeled tank?"

That's the one question Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said he gets asked everywhere he goes these days, talking about his vision for the Army of the new century.

Shinseki took the opportunity to answer it last week while speaking to about 300 service members at the Reserve Officers Association Mid-Winter Conference here.

"My response is, the Vision Statement is three-and-a-half pages long. You have to read the whole statement. No fair reading one sentence," he said.

The actual sentence>


"We are prepared to move to an all-wheel formation as soon as technology permits."

This one sentence set off a firestorm of discussion from Pentagon snack bars to installations around the world where the Army's M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tank and Bradley Infantry Fighting
Vehicle rule the day.

It is part of a larger statement that Shinseki and Army Secretary Louis Caldera made public last October. Shinseki said the statement is an attempt to answer how the Army will meet its
responsibilities to the nation in the next century.

"The thing you hear most about is transformation. But if you go back to the Vision Statement ... it talked about several things.

"First of all, it said that this Army was a strategic instrument of national policy and (it talks about) fighting and winning our nation's wars and to do that we would stay trained and ready every
day," Shinseki said.

The general added that the Army was about people and that soldiers enable America to fulfill its leadership responsibilities in the world.

"Soldiers, not tanks, not airplanes, soldiers," he said.

Shinseki said he thought the most talked about portion of the statement was the transformation because it deals with organizations and equipment. He also said the goal for the Army is being
able to deploy a warfighting brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a division within 120 hours and five divisions anywhere in the world within 30 days.

To meet this timetable, he and his planners are exploring ways to cut the lift requirements -- the amount of air and sea assets needed to transport the force.

He said he doesn't know if the wheeled tank will ever come to be. However, he does know that the M-1, designed for the Cold War, challenges the Army to transport it everywhere the Army
goes.

The Army has a "bifurcated force" today, the general said. The heavy divisions were designed for the Cold War, but can't go everywhere. Whereas the light forces don't have the lethality or
survivability to be put into the middle of a war.

The challenge, he said, is to design a new combat system with the M-1 and Bradley's survivability and lethality, but with the deployability of light forces.

He said science and technology may hold the answer, but that answer could be four or five years away.

"The Chief after me will get to decide what that future combat vehicle will look like. But I can tell you that if it's another 70-ton tank, the Chief in 2015 will have the same problem that I have
today.

"That is, a spate of missions that will require you to go to places into which a 70-ton tank is not the most ideal vehicle," the general said.

Interim brigades, currently being assembled, will use off-the-shelf, not newly designed, equipment to contribute to joint requirement to provide ground force capabilities short of war, Shinseki
said. These units will buy the time needed to develop and create the objective force of the future.

"Transformation is about science and technology investments today for the objective force. It's about recapitalization (training and equipment) of the current force, and it's about investment in an
interim capability to fill the gap," he said.

During his remarks, Shinseki also explained his reasoning for advancing the Vision so quickly into his tour as Army Chief of Staff. He assumed his position in June 1999.

A main factor for his prompt action on the Vision was the upcoming Defense Quadrennial Review in January 2001.

"If the Army was going to set the debate about 'Why an army?', 'Why this army?', 'What should this Army be prepared to do for the nation in the next century?' we had to get the message out
early," Shinseki said.

"So, could we have waited a year? Yes. Would the Vision Statement have been better? Probably. But it would have been irrelevant. No one would have heard it," Shinseki said. "The message
would have been more difficult to deliver. And the willingness to participate in a debate about national security at that point would be lost in the national campaign for this year's election."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
also: http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Feb2000/r20000203amcequip.html
Army to display high-tech soldier equipment on Capitol Hill

The U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) will showcase some of the recent innovations developed for America's warfighters at the Army Soldier System Demonstration Feb. 9 and 10 on Capitol
Hill in Washington, D.C.

Hosted by the Army's Office of Congressional Legislative Liaison, the event will provide Congress members and their staffers an opportunity to view the latest soldier technology and sample the
newest field rations available.

A demonstration will be conducted for the House of Representatives from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Feb. 9 in the foyer of the Rayburn Building. Meanwhile, a presentation for the Senate is
scheduled from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Feb. 10 in Room S902 of the Hart Building.

More than 30 items will be on display during the exhibition.

Highlights include:

Land Warrior - a futuristic, modular soldier system that integrates night vision, information, communications, situational awareness and personal protection technologies to improve lethality,
survivability, mobility, sustainment, command and control on a digitized battlefield;

Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) - a lightweight, integrated next generation infantry weapon system for the U.S. Armed Forces that will replace selective M16 Rifles, M4
Carbines and M203 Grenade Launchers;

Interceptor Body Armor - a bulletproof "flak jacket" that weighs 35-percent less than the current system;

Javelin Basic Skills Trainer - a virtual-reality based training device for the medium range, manportable, shoulder-launched anti-armor weapon system;

M16A2 - the Army's primary combat rifle that replaces the M16A1 for front line combat soldiers;

Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment - a modular, quick-release backpack with removable compartments and components, which attaches to a fighting load vest that allows
soldiers to tailor the pocket configuration to the requirements of the mission;

XM50 Joint Service General Purpose Mask - a revolutionary advancement in protective mask technology that provides increased performance, reduced breathing resistance and significantly
enhanced protection by guarding against toxic industrial materiel in addition to nuclear, biological and chemical threats;

Meal, Ready-To-Eat Improvements - advanced field-ration recipes and menu items that cater to the diverse cultural and ethnic food preferences of the 21st century soldier; and

Performance Enhancing Ration Components - improves the warriors' physical and mental performance during sustained combat operations in extreme climates by providing extra energy
and delaying fatigue.
 
Murphy's law of combat #279: In the perfect climate you'll have low-tech weapons. The year after you adopt super-high tech delicate machinery, you get deployed to the worst climate in the world.

Put another way, if you're in Fire Base This-Sucks in some equatorial jungle during the rainy season,
-and the only supply is by chopper
-and your 20mm super-tech ammo gets dumped from low-flying Chinooks with a resounding THUD into the mud
-and the 20mm ammo is stored in bunkers in knee-deep water (remember, waterproof storage cases will work perfectly in the desert and spring leaks at the first rainfall)
-and during the sapper attack at oh-dark-thirty the ammo gets thrown into the perimeter trenches with another SPLASH/THUD
-and when it's hastily unpacked and more mud and water gets splattered on it by the incoming RPG rounds and 81mm mortar shells or by the grunt diving for cover in the bottom of the trench
-and you're trying to get an accurate range reading from the integral laser rangefinder while the optics are covered with water/mud, and the scope guts has been fogged up for the past month
-and you decide screw it and just use Kentucky windage and start popping off grenades as fast as you can (who needs an extra step in firing sequence when Charlie's in the wire??)
-Is this where you want an OICW??

...now, in this case, I personally would rather have an ole reliable M2 Browning, or M203/M-79/M-19. Something that works and I hopefully could afford to train with.

Edmund
 
One problem I have with Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki concept is that for the last even years the administration has cancelled the programs which would have produced the weapons systems needed to implement it, a prime example being the M8 armored gun system.
Wheeled combat vehicles such as the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) procured by the Marine Corps have been available for years but efforts to procure them for army light divisions have been killed to hold down the defense budget. Visions of the future are all very well. but if our troops are going to fight as high mobi;ity brigades or divisions they need harware to do the jodb and they need it now!

[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited February 24, 2000).]
 
Grayfox
You are right. Initially the army had about 10 reasons for going to the M-16 (or should I say McNamara’s wiz kids had 10 reasons for jamming it down the army’s throat) and of all those reasons only two remain weight of ammo and felt recoil. The M-16A2 weights less than a half pound less (plastic, aluminum and all) than a steel and walnut M-14. They wanted 3 pounds difference. As far as these new wheeled fighting vehicles, that will allow them to deploy a fighting brigade any where in the world in 48 hours. Can any one repeat the words "Task force Speed Bump" All they are looking to do is create a bunch of brigade sized units, that look good on paper. That will get thrown into hot spots, for the sole purpose of slowing the enemy down until a heavier unit can show up. We tried this approach during the Korean war and most of these so-called Task Forces got chewed to pieces.
Personally I have nothing against the R&D effort but the bulk of the time and money should be in training and range time. Why spend billions buying a weapon system, that will probably be obsolete when needed. There are two pieces of advice that they “planners” need to remember.
1. No plan survives contact with the enemy intact.
2. “To quote Scotty from Star Trek” The more they over think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipes. Other wise the kiss theory.

If a soldier knows how to Shoot, move and communicate and how to adapt to a changing combat environment then another piece of equipment is easy.

Also what’s the sense of a rifle where the lead time for ammunition is months ,when you get in to a real shooting war (we have had one of those since Vietnam) and you are expending millions of rounds a day. If I had to lug around a 15+lb gun I would take a BAR I know what it will do and what its limitations are.



[This message has been edited by Alan B (edited February 22, 2000).]
 
Some aditional information on the OICW gleaned from army PR sources.
The OICW consists of two modules assembled as one weapon some what similar to an M16 rifle with an M203 40mm grenade launcher attached, Each OICW cab be used ibdependently as a seperate weapon'
The 5.56mm module (refered to as the "rifle module or the "carbine module") will be equivalent to the M16 rifle or the M4 but will have a short 10 inch barrel reducing 5.56mm ammunition muzzle velociy to pproximately 2500 feet per second.
The 20mm module will also be useable as a seperate weapon similar to the M79 40mm grenade launcher.
The Army would probably not procure equal numbers of 5.56 modules and 20mm mmdules.

[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited February 25, 2000).]
 
when you look at military procurement since the Vietnam War, you'll notice a trend; DoD tends to muck around too long before developing a replacement design, then goes overboard with radical new technologies, then fails to bring the new design to fruition because Congress gets tired of failures during FSD.

in a way, I agree with Shinseki's desire for deployable forces. unfortunately, it is all too possible for spending on heavy units to dwindle if the "light, fast, 'n cheap" units get most of the "UNPD" assignments. we are a wealthy country which spends less percentage of GDP on defense than many other nations. we can afford light forces, medium forces, and heavy forces; lets hope we keep them all up to reasonable strengths.
 
a classic example of a good project gone bad was the Cheyenne helicopter project in the 1960s. since the USAF wasn't taking the CAS and attack missions seriously, the Army came up with a concept of a high-performance helicopter that would support ground forces properly. the Cheyenne project was fairly ambitious; the Army wanted vertical takeoff and landing with a good weapons load, higher speed than a regular helicopter, fighter-like maneuverability, and an advanced fire-control computer.

Lockheed won the competition with a fairly radical design (along with the main and tail rotors, there was a pusher prop on the tail which boosted speed to over 200 kts), and started building prototypes. they ran into several problems (killing a couple of test pilots) that required research and redesign. they solved most or all of the aerodynamic and dynamic problems, and had started working on the fire-control computer, when Vietnam started flaring up. the Army needed lots of helicopters *now* and Congress was going to pull the plug anyway because it was taking so long, so the whole thing was just dropped. Lockheed got out of the helicopter business, and the engineering staff dispersed to the other helicopter companies.

so the end result of the millions of dollars spent and lives lost was basically nil. essentially none of the technology developed for the Cheyenne has been used in an American-made helicopter. I doubt they would have gotten the fire-control computer performing to the desired level since this was before integrated circuits and the software revolution, but the basic airframe would have been very useful as a simple gun and rocket platform.

it won't surprise me a bit for the OICW project to fall into the same rut.
 
Some additional information supplied by TFL members on the OICW is:
The weight of the OICW prototypes is currenly @ 19 ponds
2) A "blowup" occured with one of the prototypes during Army testing injuring two technicians30 as a result of theis incident the army has suspended testing of the 29mm rounds with HE projectiles. Testing wil continue using inert 20mm projectiles.
 
Well I played with a non-firing prototype that picatinny was displaying at Camp Perry this year and it is a pig. The 20mm rounf is a low brass case about 15mm long with the projectile being about 4 inches long OAL. Now I'm just a grunt with four years experience as a combat engineer, but I never encountered any explosive that's gonna work worth a **** in a projectile that size. Too little area. First you need a fuse, that sucks up space. Then the fragments have to be tungsten or some other heavy material. Now, pray tell, where are you gonna fit the explosive? this thing is gonna have less pop than a blasting cap. Now not to discount caps, but come on? Also airburst? Guess what the heaviest armour on a grunt is? Helmet maybe? No way is a 5-10 grain fragment going to punch through a Kevlar helmet. You boost the frag weight to get penetration and you lose pattern density. Also what kind of hyper sensitive explosive are we going to have to use to TRY and make this abortion work? We have to use almost straight RDX to get the 40mm HEDP to work efficiently and those things are a bit touchy. No wonder these scientifioc types are going Ka-boom. They are probably using straight RDX or PETN or astrolite-G or some other touchy stuff and you're getting a low order det on launch acceleration. OK, the projectile sucks.
The gun/unit sucks too. It weighs fifteen pounds. That's more than my M40A1 and that's a hell of a load. They want average grunts to carry this crap? we already have too much weight. How about saving several hundred million and just getting ACOGS for every rifleman? That would increase effectiveness 100% at a guess. Maybe incorporate these 40mm pump action grenade launchers that Naval weapons lab-Crane cooked up. Fires a Mk19 40mm grenade to 1500m. IIRC holds five in a tube mag under the barrel. Weighes fifteen pounds in proto stage and will probably be cut to about 12.5-13.0 in service. And you don't need to field an entirely new ammo and system. Enough ranting. Semper Fi....
 
Sgt M:
They had some of the body armor that was penetrated by the test rounds. From 5 meters they had 5 maybe a few more pens on a PASGT vest. 1 was through the shoulder portion, it went through both potions of the vests. It breaks down into 5-6 grain frags, just for that reason the small, almost perfect formed frag going extremely fast is very effecient at going through Kevlar. I do believe the current plan is a for a RDX based exposive, possible Comp B. And just like the HEDP, the round will have a shaped charge at the front of the projo. The fuze will be a multi-function fuze, the grenadier will select, air burst, in which case the fire control on the rifle would calculate the correct numbers of turns to match the range. This is inductively set prior to the projo leaving the tube. After the elapsed turns occur, the fuze functions and causes an airbust at 1-2 m HOB. If however the grenadier decides he requires a contact detionation, he hits a button and the fuze goes into a PD mode.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
Thanks sir,
I have checked out this system, at least the proto, and talked with a systems rep from Picatinny at Camp Perry. You're absolutely right about the fuze, it's a scaled down version of the Bofores AHEAD system used on the 35mm ADA systems. The shaped charge is new to me. I can't imagine any significant penetration with that, since penetration with a shaped charge is largely a function of diameter. Sounds like they added it as an afterthought. Hell, the 40mm HEDP is of marginal effectiveness as it stands. 50mm RHA and the behind target effects are somewhat disappointing but it's what we have and it's a known quantity. Effectiveness info is heartening though. Any idea on helmet penetration? Have they tested it against the CRISAT armour? (Red threat body armour, includes 1.2mm Ti plate&28layer KevlarIIRC)Still too heavy though, glad I still have my M40. BTW since the 40mm HEDP is RDX desensitized with wax 96%/4% IIRC, I would guess that they almost HAVE to use at least that potent or better an explosive. Semper Fi..
 
i doubt the OICW is going to be deployed solo...

have you seen the modern 40 mm machine cannon?
There is going to be plenty of firepower on the field in the future.

The p90 shooting 5.7 will be the modern back line carbine, the M4 will be the rifle & the OICW (perfected) will be a great cover flush out arm. I imagine reach out & touch duty will be an SR-25.

What would you arm a future squad with?
i would L&L:
1 SAW
4 OICWs
6 M4s (2 with 40 mm 203s)


the OICW is designed for the inter city war of the future. Consider the 20mm as a flashbang with oooph. Laser the window, set for +4 feet take out the sniper. That 10 inch barrel is a fps joke for a rifleman. If the OICW operator is backed up with a real rifleman then the carbine section must be for sub 50 yard CYA. The wounding potential of 556 is lost with such a short barrel.

dZ
 
There is a companion to the OICW, The name of it escapes me right now (I think Objective Crew Serves Weapon, but I most certainly be wrong). It is a 25 or 30mm AGL, that is meant to replace the Mk19 and to an extent the M2HB. Uses the tech for shells, i.e. LRF, turns inductive set counting fuze.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The OICW will deliver 3-4 times the hit probability of existing systems beyond 500 m
and an all-new defilade target attack capability out to 300 m.[/quote]

25mm_rifle.jpg

The Objective
Crew-Served Weapon (OCSW) will provide a lightweight, two-man portable, single
replacement weapon systems for a current 40mm MK 19 grenade machine gun and the
caliber .50 heavy machine gun.

Here is the data on the OICW blowup: http://www.snipersparadise.com/equipment/ocsw.htm
By Matthew Cox
Army Times Staff Writer

The army's rifle of the future suffered a setback Sept 29, 1999 when a
prototype blew up at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD., injuring two
technicians. The weapon failed during a live-fire test at a remote
firing range. The Objective Individual Combat Weapon was loaded with a
20mm high explosive round when it exploded, spewing shrapnel in all
directions, officials said. Officials were reluctant to speculate on
the cause of the explosion until an investigation can be conducted. The
failure followed about 150 successful tests with the 20mm, high
explosive ammunition, said Stepen Mango, civilian project engineer for
the weapon. The prototype of the weapon that was destroyed cost about
$20,000 for the weapon and $200,000 for the fire control system.

[This message has been edited by dZ (edited February 24, 2000).]
 
http://www.ld.com/cbd/archive/1999/07(july)/19-jul-1999/10sol015.htm

Key Performance
Parameters (in a fielded system) include: Weight: The OICW will weigh no more than 14 pounds when fully loaded with 8 HEAB rounds, 30 KE rounds, the TA/FCS, power supply and sling.
Range/Lethality: The HEAB round will have a maximum range of 1,000 meters and must provide a probability of incapacitation P(i) of not less than 0.5 at 500 meters against an exposed point
target, and 0.35 at 500 meters against defilade targets.
 
At one timei believe tthat a 25mm round was considered for the OICW but was rejected in favor of the 20mm because of weight and recoil factors. The technology of the proposed 25mm round was the same as that used in the current 20mm.
A 25mm version may be developed as a crew served weapon replacing the SAWS in the rifle squad and as a vehicle mounted weapon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top