XM25 "good enough"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Can anybody explain to me why the excessively heavy M3 Carl Gustav (still not exactly lightweight in its most recent version) is so very popular among anglophones?

---

It’s a result of the ABCA association which – nuclear concerns notwithstanding - effectively includes NZ as per http://www.abca-armies.org/

The hierarchy in terms of population and military power is ABCANZ. Taking Australia as an example, defence force development and procurement elements are enmeshed in a public service system that is concerned with process before purpose. Hence with some notable exceptions such as the Bushmaster IMV, Oz defence procurement tends to delay and ultimately to follow a lead established by A or B and preferably also C. Then the alpha order resets with Aus followed by NZ, or NZ followed by Oz.

Believe Carl Gustav is somewhat unusual in that B and C preceded Aus and NZ with A in last place. But Saab/FFV has been fortunate because its product should have been dumped in the 1960s when Sweden withheld CG spares and ammunition from ANZ in SVN.

Changing the name from ABCA to ABCANZ was mooted for about 30 seconds when NZ became a full member in 2006 but it was correctly considered the name change would just be an administrative overhead offering little value thous the organization remains ABCA http://www.abca-armies.org

Your statement wrt Australian and New Zealand acquisition processes is incorrect and one only has to look at the orbat of either nation to see this. both nations have steered their own courses for some decades although there IRS some obvious benefit to common equipment.

The attraction of the CG 3 is its flexibility and portability. It has a good rangeo of ammunition types and is relatiively simples to train and use...simply, if it ain't broke...

SJPONeill

Post 81 noted that ABCA is effectively ABCANZ and did not propose need for a change of name.

You maintain that orbats show planning and procurement for the Aus army does not tend to delay nor follow " A or B and preferably also C ". And that NZ army does not behave similarly and follow or sometimes precede Oz army. A list of such principal equipments with approx dates would be useful.

There were and are French and West German alternatives to Carl Gustav. When support was denied ANZ - and later ABCA - should have got rid of it. Instead of sending a clear message to all would-be suppliers ANZ continued to follow Britain and Canada. That was seemingly ABCA at work, although it might have been at government insistence because some AusGovs have been strangely keen to procure from Sweden. (Procurement of RBS70 was another poor message, and it is one for your list.)

Fraternal relations and common doctrine can be useful. But British and Canadian land forces are not active in SE Asia, Oceania or the South-West Pacific and are unlikely to budge on ANZ account in either a geographic or procurement sense. Similarly Australia and NZ are unlikely to deploy West of Suez or into the NorthEast Pacific. Equipment commonality with the US and France and with Singapore, Korea and possibly Japan (if ever ..) could be more productive. Possibly also China for a variant of the QLB-06 / QLZ-87B.

With regards to ABCA procurement I do know that NZ follows the 'pic the best of the bunch' from in-service ABCA equipment. LAV3, MHOV trucks, NH90 helicopters, DMW rifles, LSW machine guns, body armour, etc is all from within the in-service ABCA family. I'm pretty sure that the Australian's main point of difference is that they want to maintain a domestic manufacturing base and that sometimes means a move away from the American/British/Canadian in-service equipment types as the European manufacturers seem more predisposed to licensing arrangements (hence the Steyr rifle and Tigre helicopters).

I've always loved (admittedly it does become a love-hate relationship when I'm carrying the thing) the Carl Gustav but am in no position to comment as to alternative systems or the history with Saab (while the news that they did not support it in SEA is new to me, I do find that revelation interesting). I will say that the CG is a very robust, hard wearing infantry system with a long lifespan and it survives a fair amount of. If the lighter comparable systems lack the same robustness then that could point in the CG's favour.

I would love to see how one of these stacked up against (or complemented) the CG (BLUF: westernised RPG7 launcher): http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...xporter-rpg-7/

End of the day, we could chase a better system but the CG is good enough and suits us fine right now. We need to remember, too, that most of our efforts should be spent on improving the people and organisational aspects in the infantry rather than continuously pursuing the latest and greatest (and lightest) equipment on offer. The CG might have been a good enough system when it was procured back in the day, and the cost of replacement may have never been worth the gains to be had since.

With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris jM

With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

---

Understand you mean that fire of 40mm MV ammunition would preferably be arranged using AG36 and similar UGLs attached to a specialized and well sighted stock or gripstock, and when UGL is alternately attached to a rifle or carbine it should be employed mostly to fire LV and only infrequently MV grenades. And of course if MV ammunition were procured for such use it would be in service when/if some type of MGL was procured later on.

Such a deliberate two step advance could well appeal to the British and in turn to others in ABCA. Usefully both types of UGL contending for attachment to the EF88/F90 are LV and MV compatible.

Quote:

---

Launching a new generation: tracing Asian grenade developments
Grenade launchers and their ammunition are currently experiencing the fastest and most dramatic period of development of any small arms. In NATO armies, the traditional 40x46 mm Low Velocity (LV) and 40x53 mm High Velocity (HV) rounds used in shoulder-fired and crew-served launchers respectively still dominate, although ammunition offered for shoulder-fired weapons now includes LV Extended Range (LV-ER) and Medium Velocity (MV) to provide greater reach [first posted on 30 October 2013]

---

Para extracted from recent IHS Jane’s Defence News Brief - IDR ( not yet free on website).

Quote:

---

British Army infantry to revert to 81 mm mortar
Rupert Pengelley, London - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
04 November 2013

Key Points
• The UK forces' 81 mm mortar is to be kept in service
• The new mortar fire-control terminal enters service in 2014
The majority of the M6-640 Commando handheld and M6-895 bipod-type 60 mm mortars acquired in quantity from Hirtenberger by the British Army to meet urgent operational requirements (UORs) in Afghanistan since 2008 are to be shelved for economy reasons.

According to Major Haydn Jellard, a staff officer from the Dismounted Close Combat section of the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) Capability Directorate Combat who spoke at the Defence IQ Future Mortar Systems conference in London in October, once the drawdown from Afghanistan is complete, the Anglo-Canadian 81 mm L16A2 mortar will again be the only type on issue to standard infantry battalions in Reaction Force and Adaptive Force brigades.

---

See http://www.janes.com/article/29502/b...o-81-mm-mortar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris jM

...With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

---

With the excellent holsters commerically available to hold the GL, the Soldier is better off keeping the M-320 system separate from his rifle. This enables better accuracy with the M-320 and keeps maximum freedom of movement when employing the M-4. The M-4 will be lighter and handier to employ. A truly dedicated Grenadier may carry a very slick (and lighter weight) M-4 with only a few mags and plenty more Golden Eggs, balancing his load. Having leaders smart enough to employ these systems properly will still be a challenge.

Tankersteve

The forum at www.quarry.nildram.co.uk has a new thread titled " Chinese 40mm grenade launchers ". Its first item decribes two types of 40x53mm GL that have been or are being developed by the mainland Chinese.

If the 'sniper' version does have a fairly accurate range of 1,000 or more metres then it is past time for the XM-25 to be consigned to a scrapheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Compost

See http://www.janes.com/article/29502/b...o-81-mm-mortar

---

so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking

Worse...

Look at the photo and see where the barrel of that soldier's rifle is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David I Evans

so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David I Evans

so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking

---

Joined up and pop-centric thinking notwithstanding, “shelved” does not necessarily mean retired and scheduled for disposal. It can and probably does mean the 60mm has been transferred to reserve for issue dependent upon circumstances and physical environment.

That was what I took it to mean as well. Perhaps going into depot-level stores for proper preservation.

I've always liked the 60. Light, capable of very good accuracy even in hand held mode, and not under-ammo'd when you use the right round and properly match it against the effects you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggus

The one glaring ammunition issue that I can see that would benefit very quickly from minimal changes is in relation to 40mm UGL ammunition. I'd like to see a longer range 40x46mm round adopted, such as the MEI Mercury. It is probably the best stand-in for the old 51mm mortars as used by the British Army of yesteryear, and it imposes a very modest weight penalty for nearly twice the range.

---

Brit Army revealed intention to test 40x46 Extended Range and compatible ammunition back in Oct 2013. See: http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOT...3:TEXT:EN:HTML

Meanwhile US Army has seemed with little publicity to be perservering with XM-25. Junior members of ABCA may have been simply waiting a decision or decisions by the seniors.

However it is worth noting that on 12 Sep 2013 Australian Munitions – a subsidiary of Thales - released a media statement regarding an agreement with STK of Singapore “ to cooperate in Australia and New Zealand for the development, manufacturing and marketing of ST Kinetics’ world-leading 40mm low velocity, extended range, and air bursting ammunition. " http://www.australian-munitions.com....0Australia.pdf

Six weeks later on 22 October 2013 STK announced sale of 40mm HV ammunition to Canada, and also that STK 40mm LV airburst (possibly LV/ER airburst) ammunition had been selected for the US Army Foreign Comparative Testing program. http://www.stengg.com/press-centre/p...40mm-solutions

Have not found any recent internet mention of ABCA interest in 40x46mm LV/ER or 40x51mm MV ammunition.

New CG M4 is coming. According to rumors it has smart sight, that recognises rocket type, estimates the distance to the target, finds right point of aim etc. Sounds like a headache for HK.

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Land/Wea...arl-Gustaf-M4/

Project was/is planned to continue until at least Spring 2016:
see
'Army’s XM25 Gets More-Powerful, Streamlined Optic’', Army Times, 14 Oct 2015,
http://kitup.military.com/2015/10/ar...reamlined.html

April 2015 RFI to be followed by 2016 market survey and 2018 EMD program,

see http://www.stratvocate.com/grow/find...5QKN-16-X-02V3

Training needs are being considered:

“Medium Caliber Ammunition: The Target Practice Day Night Thermal (TP-DNT) cartridges are 40mm grenade training cartridges. The low velocity variant is for training with the M203/M320 grenade launchers; the high velocity variant is for training with the Mk19 grenade machine gun. Both cartridges will provide the Warfighter with a non-dud producing, environmentally friendly training cartridge that provides a visual impact signature seen day or night, by the naked eye, through night vision devices,and thermal weapon sights. These cartridges will replace the 40mm Target Practice, M918/M385A1 (Mixed Belt) cartridges and the 40mm M781 cartridges. It is expected that the unit price for high velocity cartridges will be lower than the Mixed Belt cartridges. Funding for FY 2015 activities transitions to PE 0654802/Project EC1. In FY 2018 funding is in place to start an Increased Range Anti-Personnel (IRAP) Program which will extend the range of conventional 40mm Low Velocitygrenades from 300 meters to 600 meters. “

Extract from DoD FY 2016 President’s Budget Submission – Army Justification Book of R,D,T & E,
http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/Offi...orms//vol4.pdf

Via Twitter and the opening passage:

Quote:

---

U.S. Army‘s senior leadership has ended an agreement with Orbital ATK Inc. that spanned two decades over the XM25 25mm airburst weapon, a move that could put the troubled weapon system’s future into jeopardy.

---

Link:http://taskandpurpose.com/army-kills...burst-weapon/?

US Army authorities have revealed little about the status of the XM-25 project in 2017. It may be continuing as a technology demonstrator for ‘brilliant’ ammunition/technology. Alternatively the whole project may have been suspended pending some decision, or even terminated with un-expended funds transferred to another project or a contingency pool.

Has any useful statement been made since the early May 2017 report on military.com ?

On 13 August it was reported the XM-25 project has been conclusively terminated:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...xm25-punisher/

Hence the US Army is now likely to promptly adopt some kind of shoulder-fired multi-shot weapon that can fire one or more types of 40mm grenade cartridge. For support of foot-mobile infantry it also likely to sponsor new forms of micro guided munitions which can be powered or glided all the way to a target.