Objective Individual Combat Weapon enters PDRR

Any new rifle design ought to be done by people who have lived in the grunt infantry's boots for a week. Since some smart movie makers have their actors go through a sort of military-style camp with patrols, weapons cleaning, basic tactics instruction, and generally learn how to live life in the field, this isn't as tough as it may seem. Dale Dye (a retired Marine) has been hired to run actors through this sort of thing for several of the better war movies such as Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, and many others.

At the very least, the think tanks ought to get their ideas reviewed by grunts or military weapons instructors before the idea gathers too much steam.

I just thought of something that might be a big problem with the OICW (whatever it's called now) in heavy brush/woods. If the 20mm grenade is proximity fused to detonate a couple meters over the intended target, what's going to keep it from blowing if it passes some other stuff like tree trunks close to it's path of travel? "I'm supposed to detonate when I get 2 meters from the target or anything else. Like next to this tree... NOW!"

Maybe it's fused sensitive enough such that "I'm supposed to detonate at 462 meters, +/- 5 meters." That adds a whole new factor for Murphy's Law. "Did I fly 462 meters yet? Can't tell. I'll think about it. THUNK. Now I'm embedded in the dirt somewhere. Hmmm....guess I'll never detonate."

Or even worse..."I'm supposed to detonate 2 meters from the nearest object. I'm supposed to be programmed what the range is. OK, got a bad signal...@#$% meters. Huh? Oh, well, I'll detonate the first time I'm 2 meters from something, which is right out of the muzzle. KA-BLAM!!!! Hope my gunner doesn't mind."

I think good training and a healthy ammo budget will make out soldiers more deadly than this thing. However, a bigger training budget won't win any fancy new contracts to some Beltway Bandit.

Edmund
 
The fuze proposed for the OICW/SABR/OCW is a turn counting fuze vice a VT or time fuze. The only variable is MV, some of the prototypes show here had a muzzle device the measured MV and inductively set the fuze for required turns to reach the target. However this will cause variables in the height of burst. The prototype also had an inclinometer built into the sight. Once the 20 was selected and range was determined an "cue" showed up in the sight and gave the gunner an indication to elevate until a aimpoint appeared. Again with the small optics on the weapon, it didn't appear they had the ability to super elevate enough to hit targets at extreme ranges. But all in all this system is an engineers weapon, it will not be accepted well by the troops and I don't think it will be adopted.
 
Guys, you can fling a 20mm grenade 800+ yards
and airburst it above a fighting hole.

I sit here wondering how our troops are going to know there is a fighting hole 800+ yards away that needs airbursting. I don't think there is a whole lot of aiming going on these days so what we would have here is a mimi-mortar.
I like Mad Dogs idea of a FN FAL better.

------------------
"Keep shootin till they quit floppin"
The Wife 2/2000
 
"I mean c'mon we spent over 2 BILLION on EACH B2 bomber we have."

This is actually not correct. It is a very common misconception that is, as usual, the fault of the media. ;) What is interesting, however, is that they didn't lie or even distort the truth when they said it. It is a classic exercise in deceptive statistics in that the statistic is actually true...it just doesn't say what you think it says.

Huh?

Here's the story (and be aware, my numbers might be off a little- I'm doing this from memory): When the B-2 was unveiled there was much poo-pooing over the cost (deservedly) and over its 'warmongerish' purpose (typical media spin: weapons bad). Some journalist somewhere noted that this plane had been in development for a DARNED long period of time and that the USAF was only ordering something on the order of 10. So he did a little digging and made some reasonable assumptions about costs and whatnot, and did the following math:

He added the total costs of 15-20 years of R&D, the costs it actually takes to build 10 planes in materials and labor, and all associated costs...lumped them together and divided by 10 (the number of planes to be produced). He came up with 2 billion dollars. Thats what each Stealth Bomber costs.

Yeah. Sorta.

2 billion is, in very real terms, what those 10 planes cost. However, when most people ask 'how much does something cost' they want to know how much loot they're gonna have to fork over to get one. Everything beyond the labor and materials to produce the plane is NOT factored into the real per-unit cost...why? That money was already paid. Upfront. Years ago.

Better news...the USAF contracted for more planes a few years back. The R&D on them is "free"...the beauty of sunk costs. They cost only what it costs to put one together.

What is the real per-unit cost of a B-2? I have no clue. It's hideously expensive, I'm sure. Several hundred million for certain. But well less than even 1 billion dollars.

As to this fancy-pants gun...I'll wait and see. Everyone said bad things about the M-16 when it came out, too. I dunno. It sounds goofy, to be sure...

Mike

------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
 
This may have limited use as a support weapon. Put 2 of these in each unit, instead of on every soldier.

I've always imagined the perfect individual weapon as a rifle which could fire a single type of ammunition with selective explosive capability, or selective slug size. Instead of having 30 rounds of .223, you've got 10,000 rounds of .001. You can fire the them individually at some obscene velocity (10,000 fps), or shoot hundreds of them simultaneously. Hell send them all off in one 6 inch projectile. You could do this with a rail gun and a barrel that works like a particle accelerator. Efficient energy management would be the key.
 
from the PM article i linked above:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Critics point out that this is more than 20 times the price of a bare-bones M16 assault rifle. But raw numbers can be deceptive. While
the basic M16 costs about $500, the must-have options for urban warfare quickly drive up the price. An M16 equipped with an M203
grenade launcher and thermal weapon sight currently costs about $29,000. The complete M16 modular weapon system, with a digital
laser, compass, thermal weapon sight and laser pointer, costs $35,000. "We are comfortable with the cost," says Zimmerman. "The money
is worth it."
Technical specs and accounting ledgers don't tell the whole story. In simulated combat, an OICW prototype showed the weapon's true
potential. When the simulated hits were tallied, the virtual units firing M16s suffered 70 casualties. Those firing the OICWs saw only one
soldier go down. In real combat, there's only one figure that counts: The number of good guys left standing after the fog of battle clears.[/quote]

gee 35K bucks for a loaded AR???

someone is cooking the books on that estimate.

If the 20mm is the cats meow, then whats the combat load for shells? 20? Thats alot of bulk to carry.

If you had one or 2 OICW gunners in a squad then the sniper scene in FMJ would have played a bit different. But maybe the M203 is all you need in the squad.

This guy has a field soldiers perspective on rifle gernade tactics: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/oicw.htm http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/riflehandgrenades.htm
 
This is an unbelievable thread! Having been US Air Farce for my military tenure I know next to nothing about military rifles.

But, speaking purely as an observer of human nature and hubris it looks to be a little difficult to effectively carry a bayonet. But it might look nice with an optional flowerpot planted with roses or some other thorny folliage for close-in protection.

I would think it might be pretty easy for a guy with a rock, club or other lo tech device to just walk up to the soldier girl carrying one of these devices, flip forward her Kevlar helmet, bop her over the head and take it. ;)
 
I did not know the cost breakdown on the B2 program, in anycase, the money is gone and the paint is peeling off of them or so I read :)
Why are we building this big ugly OICW?
Because we are trying to skip a step in weapons evolution.
There are a score of "better" small arms than the M16 series, the G11 and Steyr ACR off the top of my head, but you can only take the concept of "little metal thingies whizzing around so far."
Realisticly, military small arms advancment is incremental, What can a production G11 do that a 1st generation AK47 can't?
The Gov. wanted 100% improvement over the M16.
100%!!! that is a Mighty TALL order!
OICW circa 2000 C.E? Yuck. Heavy, ugly.
OICW circa 2020? It will be a thing of beauty.

------------------
Big Guns again
No speakee well
But plain.
--H.C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top