Results 1 to 20 of 99

Thread: XM25 "good enough"

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default XM25 "good enough"

    http://www.military.com/news/article...l?ESRC=army.nl

    In a shocking reversal, the OICW crowd simplified the XM25 and are going to release it in the "good enough" stage.

    These are the same folks who sat on 120mm beehive round for 20 years because the fusing wasn't "quite" perfect. (Perfect? In a beehive round? Are you kidding me?)

    Who was it that said "The perfect is the enemy of the good"?

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default My perception is that someone way up the power

    curve got hold of PEO Soldier and told 'em to shape up and get with the program. If so, it was a long overdue grab by the stacking swivel IMO.

    That's just one of several reverses from them in the last couple of weeks...

  3. #3
    Council Member sullygoarmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fort Stewart
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Looks like it could fill a nice nitch, especially in an urban environment.
    "But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."

    -Thucydides

  4. #4
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    If they further this so that the warhead technology is useable by the M109 payload rifle, I will be very happy.
    Reed

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    How useful would this be? The internet is full of speculation, and I've seen a lot of guys complain that they don't want it.

    But then, I don't see how different it could be from a 40MM like the MGL that the Marines are using. Actually, it probably is more effective, since the 40MM is half fuse and expends something 80% of what energy it has on the ground.

  6. #6
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Infantry weapons to date have permitted fighters to shoot at or through an obstacle concealing enemy threats, but the Army for years has been trying to come up with a weapon to engage targets behind barriers without resorting to mortars, rockets or grenades -- all of which risk collateral damage
    So the XM-25 is to address that specific application? This is problematic to put it mildly. One per fireteam?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    4

    Default

    12 pounds?

    Ok let's ask a few questions:
    1. What are the dimensions and weight of one mag. How many can a soldier carry before they bulk out=basic load.

    2. At twelve pounds plus basic load their is no way the soldier is also going to have a M-4. Pistol becomes a manditory addition. This = Army has to buy more pistols or transfer pistols from someone that has them now.

    3. 1 per fireteam would seem to mean either the M-203/320 or the Rifleman have to go. That position will become the XM-25 gunner.

    4. At least in the current generation it is two bulky to "tuckaway" somewhere so a soldier could at least carry an M-4 with one or two mags to defend them selves.

    So we end up with a every specilized weapon that may go bing for ammo in the average fire fight very quickly and the soldier is running around (you would hope) with at least a M-9 to defend themselves.

    If they add them to the current MTOE's in a Arms Room fashion, ie. I'm going to leave the M-320's at home today because we will be operating mounted, then maybe, but for the oppertunity cost I would have to say no thanks.

  8. #8
    Council Member TAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    115

    Default Loss of 5.56 too

    Quote Originally Posted by DMR View Post
    12 pounds?

    Ok let's ask a few questions:
    1. What are the dimensions and weight of one mag. How many can a soldier carry before they bulk out=basic load.

    2. At twelve pounds plus basic load their is no way the soldier is also going to have a M-4. Pistol becomes a manditory addition. This = Army has to buy more pistols or transfer pistols from someone that has them now.

    3. 1 per fireteam would seem to mean either the M-203/320 or the Rifleman have to go. That position will become the XM-25 gunner.

    4. At least in the current generation it is two bulky to "tuckaway" somewhere so a soldier could at least carry an M-4 with one or two mags to defend them selves.

    So we end up with a every specilized weapon that may go bing for ammo in the average fire fight very quickly and the soldier is running around (you would hope) with at least a M-9 to defend themselves.

    If they add them to the current MTOE's in a Arms Room fashion, ie. I'm going to leave the M-320's at home today because we will be operating mounted, then maybe, but for the oppertunity cost I would have to say no thanks.
    It also means two fewer Soliders in each rifle sqaud capable of shooting 5.56 in support of the operation. 6 fewer per Plt and 18 fewer per company. Adds up quick!

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Seems like one per squad would be a better idea.

    And since trying to conduct an enveloping attack with one fire team in a nine-man squad is a usually a fantasty anyway it won't matter that the fire teams aren't balanced.

    Maybe a different story if the squad is reinforced but usually they're understrength.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  10. #10
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Note that in the article they are calling for 36 per battalion. It should be easy enough to figure out at what level they are being deployed based on that number.

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Thumbs up Good!

    For light TOEs 36 per battalion sounds like one per rifle squad plus three unassigned in the company arms room.

    One weapon like that per fire team is just too much in small Army squads. Too many suppression weapons equals not enough riflemen to clear with.

    Now, if the Army squad would just get rid of one of the SAWs. One light machine gunner, one grenadier and six or seven riflemen would be better. Balanced fire teams made better sense in the days of the BAR and M1, especially in big USMC squads.
    Last edited by Rifleman; 10-15-2010 at 06:37 PM.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  12. #12
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    It looks like one per squad but I still don't see the point. According to Wikipedia the system weighs 14 pounds but it doesn't say if that is loaded or empty. I am guessing empty. It gives the weight of the Target acquisition/fire control but does not say if that weight is included or not. Logic would suggest that it is included in the weight of the system but since this data apparently comes from the company who is trying to market it to the military, logic may not apply. There is no weight given for the ammo. There has been no data that I have seen on the effective burst radius of the round. I also have questions about what will happen when the highspeed optics fail. I would like to know what secondary weapon the gunner is supposed to carry. Most importantly, I would like to know why we need this. This appears to be a very narrow niche weapon. It appears that it can only really do one thing that the M203 can't. Is it really worth the cost or could that money be better spent elsewhere?
    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

    Terry Pratchett

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Biggus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 09-21-2014 at 02:20 PM. Reason: Copied at author's request from Platoon Weapons thread

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    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/

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    173

    Default Is XM-25 charging or staggering forward ?

    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

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    173

    Default 40mm LV/IRAP deconflicted to beyond 2018

    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

  17. #17
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    12,289

    Default Army Kills Contract For Shoulder-Fired Airburst Weapon

    Via Twitter and the opening passage:
    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/?
    davidbfpo

Similar Threads

  1. On PBS: The War
    By Tom Odom in forum Historians
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-04-2007, 10:57 PM
  2. Here's the Good News
    By SWJED in forum Media, Information & Cyber Warriors
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-19-2007, 06:04 PM
  3. 'Good News' from Northern Iraq
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-23-2006, 05:47 AM
  4. Good News From Iraq
    By DDilegge in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-03-2005, 02:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •