OICW

[Fintin]

I hate this thing. why dont they work out the kinks in the m4 and build a system that could be attached to it. its a total waist of money. the lss could be modified to shoot a 20mm round, and all the optics and lasers could be attached by rail system. i just needed to rant a bit about this its been bugging me for awhile now. please continue to post your views

[Ratamacue]

I'm going to say good because WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT WILL PERFORM. The design hasn't been fielded yet and probably won't be fielded within the next 10 years which gives it plenty of development time to perfect the design.

The issue with the M16 series is that the DOD feels it's time to move on to a more advanced and efficient weapon, hence the XM8. Once the XM8 becomes available on a wide scale, the M4 is gone. The Light Shotgun System is being designed to mount on the M8 now, and the XM8's will probably be issued with rails similar to the M4.

The plan for the XM29 is to first issue both the XM8 and XM25 to infantry squads, and once the technology is small enough and efficient enough, they'll combine them to form the XM29 (aka OICW). If they simply can't make the package small and light enough, the XM29 will probably be scrapped.

[Dalleer]

Well, it seems like a interesting project, especially if the 20mm grenade launcher does get implemented in the final version.

But, this is years away still...

[Haiw]

it's even too bulky to use as toilet paper :(

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Well they've thrown alot of money at the OICW. It probably would be alot better to just use a different weapon all together as it has never been field tested.

[perdurabo]

we can't say that idea is bad because is quite good but i can't see this bulky thing in next 10-15yrs on battlefield way to hevy and big prabably balance is ****ty too so wait until new materials and other things will be on market and we will see how it will work:)(prabably very bad at the bigening but afther childhood it will be good)

[Ratamacue]

The models of the design they want it to be like actually aren't that big or bulky. The issue is that right now the components can't be miniturized enough, but probably could be within the next 10 years.

http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/107617/9.jpg

[Durandal]

Once they get it working and IF they get it working, it will be a generational leap in firearms for the U.S. military (and its allies should they choose to buy it...or afford it *yikes*).

My issues with it like most of the current higher tech side of the ground fighting forces is the juice to run it. Battery/power supply technology is still not to the point where I feel comfortable with so many hitech gadgets.

When you combine this with the Landwarrior system and the Interim Brigade concepts, I think you might find a VERY potent small scale fighting force...a force, quite honestly the world has not seen. The combination of precision, flexibilit, and intelligence gathering/use is amazing currently even at its initial level. If it gets better, look out.

The OICW is just a part of the future fightiing force. It like al the other componenets are being developed in parts that will, hopefuly, come together in the next decade or two.

Be patient...this is the future. :)

Now, ask me about the M8 project and the side projects developig from this and I will have a different opinion as many of you already know. :|

Edit: What I do not get looking a the current configuration is how they are going to get anything in the form of force projection out of that. The carbine barrel looks to be about 8" long and and the 20mm is a low velocity round. Right now they have a CQB weapon witht he capability of going out a 100 yards or so with the 20mm.

I am assuming they are going to the dedicated marksmen setup with three in each platoon with a DMR of sorts, but I am not too sure. Interestinig stuff.

Cheers!

[Haiw]

just a wild guess, but with the extremely short barrel on the 556 part, and supposedly the 20mm part meant for the longer ranges, wouldnt it almost make more sense to replace the 556 part with a shotgun portion?

[Durandal]

just a wild guess, but with the extremely short barrel on the 556 part, and supposedly the 20mm part meant for the longer ranges, wouldnt it almost make more sense to replace the 556 part with a shotgun portion?

Nah, no ammo capacity. The weapon is already bulky. Imagine a 12 Ga clip. Uggg...

[Haiw]

the LSS thingy didnt seem so bad...really light, and pretty small too...put a bigger magazine on it and u should have quite some rounds no? besides, a 12 gauge should give a pretty big chance at one shot knockout, where the 556 mostly needs several rounds to get the job done...especially when fired from such a mini-barrel

[Fox2]

My issues with it like most of the current higher tech side of the ground fighting forces is the juice to run it. Battery/power supply technology is still not to the point where I feel comfortable with so many hitech gadgets.

I was wondering about that sort of thing myself.

Some time ago I heard about a technology in development that used a flexible material not unlike rubber. The material was originally developed to be used in ultra-small speakers. Basically, the material would produce vibrations when electric current was passed through it. The inventor then discovered that the process also worked in reverse. If you stretched the material repeatedly, it generated electrical currents.

Last I heard, the inventor had submitted a prototype boot using the technology to the Land Warrior project or something similar for refinement. Basically the concept being that every time the soldier steps, the material is stretched, and generates an electric current that is then used to recharge batteries somewhere on his person.

Has anyone else heard anything about this technology or even if it has been developed further?

[Durandal]

Has anyone else heard anything about this technology or even if it has been developed further?

Yeah, the technology is either the same or similar to my shake-up flashlight. It works, but seems a bit awkward since it doesn;t hold the charge to well. You would need some sort of capacitor or battery to store the energy it creates. That is the problem, but it is also the step in the right direction as far as thinking outside the box.

I was reading some material in WIRED magazine about nano-engines and the quest for the smallest engine/generator. I forget which issue it was. Very cool stuff, not nano small but close enough to not matter for its possible military application. No relative weight...though currently the do not have the power output to matter. Again, though, a possible stepping stone in the right direction.

I think the DoD should look into flywheel tech for their armoured vehicles. Use energy created by the engine or movement to spin a flywheel (stored energy) on a low energy magnetic field (less friction since there is not metal contact and tus less energy loss till henerator contact). They are looking at these for use in space where they would be at their best in realtively 0g and a vaccum.

We live in interesting times.

[irishmike21]

guys the xm29 is not going to be made up of the xm8 and xm25 combined they will be used as seperate weapons in the squad.... The xm8 is going to be fielded more and more through 2021 and the army is going to buy up to 900,000 if approved. As for the xm29 when the technology becomes available it will be issued 4 out of nine men in the squad and the army will buy 22,000 the xm8 will be the primary weapon while the xm29 will act as the grenadiers in teh squad to read on this go to armytimes.com and look up xm8 in the search bar then go to article regarding the xm8 as the future combat rifle it will give you quite a bit of information as well as the info I just gave you ok im gone l8a

[Roger Rabbit]

1 word(well actually its 4 condensed into one and i think that means its an ancronym but i'm not sure :cantbeli: )

KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid

Why does a rifle need to be so complicated? Look at the success of the AK series and all the other variations that have been based on it.

[Ratamacue]

2 words.

The Future.

You could say that we didn't need to make the leap from muskets to bolt-action rifles to automatic weapons because we needed to "keep it simple." Weapons can't stay as they are forever. Someone needs to make the technological leap into the next generation of weaponry, just as they did some 100+ years ago.

[Deuterium]

2 words.

The Future.

You could say that we didn't need to make the leap from muskets to bolt-action rifles to automatic weapons because we needed to "keep it simple." Weapons can't stay as they are forever. Someone needs to make the technological leap into the next generation of weaponry, just as they did some 100+ years ago.

So splain to me how the rifle is substantially better than what we have now? The grenade launcher is a given, IF they can shrink the system down and address the battery issue. As for the rifle, dumb bullet portion, I don't see ANY improvement. Switching from a flintlock to a percussion cap, leap forward. Switching from a smooth bore to a rifled bore, leap forward. How is the rifle portion of this abortion a leap forward? PLease be specific. All I see are a bunch of engineers that have never carried a weapon in the boonies designing a weapon. On a personal not have you ever carried a weapon, say a machinegun, for an extented period of time in the field or combat? If you haven't I submit you really don't have an informed opinion on this subject matter.

[California Joe]

I prefer flints to caps. Can always get another rock but if you lose your caps you're f'ed. heh.

The money being pissed away on this seriously ugly weapon could probably be put to better use feeding soldiers families and buying more vests. Just some....you know...

[Deuterium]

I prefer flints to caps. Can always get another rock but if you lose your caps you're f'ed. heh.

The money being pissed away on this seriously ugly weapon could probably be put to better use feeding soldiers families and buying more vests. Just some....you know...

Yep!!

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

I prefer flints to caps. Can always get another rock but if you lose your caps you're f'ed. heh.

The money being pissed away on this seriously ugly weapon could probably be put to better use feeding soldiers families and buying more vests. Just some....you know...

Yup they toss millions at a gun thats not going to be in service until im an old ass man, while the guys these days dont have the bullet proof vests that they need. Thats politicians for ya :cantbeli:

[irishmike21]

I agree with your view on the matter but this weapon most likely will be the most used weapon in the army into the forseeable future hte xm29 and the xm8 will be hte weapons of the next generation of warfighters so yea you might be an old ass man while this weapon is in service :lol:

[BMF]

the CONCEPT of the whole OICW project is a good one. bout time somebody went and looked at the whole family of small arms in a new way. Im not a huge fan of all this high tech gadgetry myself, but at least in this case if it all breaks down, you still have a usable rifle (xm8). in my opinion, the project will (in 15 or so years) do three important things.

1: greatly simplify logistics. 2: provide the army with a much better basic rifle. and finally, drastically up the firepower of the infantry squad.

just my thoughts

[Ratamacue]

So splain to me how the rifle is substantially better than what we have now? The grenade launcher is a given, IF they can shrink the system down and address the battery issue. As for the rifle, dumb bullet portion, I don't see ANY improvement. Switching from a flintlock to a percussion cap, leap forward. Switching from a smooth bore to a rifled bore, leap forward. How is the rifle portion of this abortion a leap forward? PLease be specific. All I see are a bunch of engineers that have never carried a weapon in the boonies designing a weapon. On a personal not have you ever carried a weapon, say a machinegun, for an extented period of time in the field or combat? If you haven't I submit you really don't have an informed opinion on this subject matter.

Yes, I've carried a heavy weapon before. But, as someone who's only 15, no, I haven't carried a heavy weapon for an extended period of time. Now, at the current moment, there are no significant advantages at all. I agree that the rifle portion is a POS. The leap forward is integrating a rifle with an accurate, semi-automatic grenade launcher that--given enough time--can be distance-programmed for airbursts. But I wholeheartedly agree, until they shrink the entire system down it's a very large and very expensive paperweight, and I'll admit you have much greater expertise on the subject than me. However, I'm just putting my $0.02 in. I think that given 10 years, the XM29 could be a massive leap forward in weapons design. The whole reason behind the XM8/XM25 is to perfect each component before more-or-less combining the two.

[Durandal]

Yes, I've carried a heavy weapon before. But, as someone who's only 15...

Ummm...what?

[Ratamacue]

A heavy weapon as in a rifle that weighs alot. Not a machine gun. ;)

[Roger Rabbit]

You can beef up the firepower of a squad with out spending this much money. Obviously without using or seeing the weapon and the test carried out then this is all theoretical. But i am thinking that the more complicated a weapon is then the more things there are to go wrong and to be maintained. The reason the AK series work so well is that they are so simple. So working on a very basic design and improving it and adding say a grenade launcher then you could beef up the firepower of a squad very simply. Add a bipod to the rifle and the capability to fire belts of rounds and you increase the fire support even more. But this is all theory without actually testing the rifle or studying the results of tests carried out.

[Durandal]

So splain to me how the rifle is substantially better than what we have now? The grenade launcher is a given, IF they can shrink the system down and address the battery issue. As for the rifle, dumb bullet portion, I don't see ANY improvement. Switching from a flintlock to a percussion cap, leap forward. Switching from a smooth bore to a rifled bore, leap forward. How is the rifle portion of this abortion a leap forward? PLease be specific. All I see are a bunch of engineers that have never carried a weapon in the boonies designing a weapon. On a personal not have you ever carried a weapon, say a machinegun, for an extented period of time in the field or combat? If you haven't I submit you really don't have an informed opinion on this subject matter.

Well part of the problem is that people keep calling it a "rifle". It is a short carbine.

I think we all agree that the weapon is crap if they cannot get the weight under a certain level. You won't be able to get it as light as say an M4 or stock M16 variant...but they need to get it close. Certainly less than a grenadier's M203 and load out.

[Deuterium]

As I said before what is the major leap forward, or even minor, for the rifle portion? Caseless Ammo? That be a leap. Superior aiming system? That be a leap forward. Smaller size greater knockdown? That be a leap forward. I just don't see it. If the grenade laucher portion is such a great thing, and it may be, make it a stand-alone weapon. A user selected buck-shot/grenade could make this a stand alone option. Make it the same weight as the 240 with teaser-belt and I'd be sold.

[Tane Angle]

Deutrium, I was wondering about those grenade rounds myself. Any possibility of buckshot, flechete, CS, OC, LTL, flashbang, etc rounds? Thanks. Have a good one, just some thoughts...

[Durandal]

I guess it depends on what yous ee as the possible threats for the United States military. I see urban combat and CQB needs on a alrger scale than we can currently commit to. I think this weapon would be a not so bad choice.

[Deuterium]

Deutrium, I was wondering about those grenade rounds myself. Any possibility of buckshot, flechete, CS, OC, LTL, flashbang, etc rounds? Thanks. Have a good one, just some thoughts...

Yeah in the perfect world I'd like to have a button to select the round. All of those would be good. The idea of the OICW, laze the range select airburst or ground, dot appears where to aim, is good. Its just the size, weight, battery issue. Stop focusing on getting a weapon to the force and start back in on R&D, see where it takes us.

[JunglistSoldier]

I too fail to see the point of this weapon, which is basicly an uglified G36. The AR15 is a proven and capable platform that is totaly modular and can fill each and every role that this new rifle will.

And as someone who has carried a few guns around, I'd never EVER carry the prototype OICW thing with the big ass grenade thing even if it was magic and made hot cocoa.

[Tane Angle]

I think for the here and now, the M203 and M79 can handle the gap. The M79 has most of those rounds already. Might be a good idea to throw a few of those into each platoon. Maybe expand the number of types of rounds too; not necessarily instead of the OICW, but at least to have something to use for the next few years. Have a good one, just some thoughts...

[BMF]

as far as leaping forward...1: the theories behind it lead me to believe the rifle will be considerably more reliable then the M16. the M16 design blows back gas/debris into the chamber...which leads to a lot of carbon buildup. the new design does not.

2: the major leap forward is in the logistics end of it, not the user end. one system for the various specialties (LMG, grenade, sharpshooter, etc) means a lot of time and money saved, as well as making it far easier to keep more weapons out of the body and fender shop, and in the hands of soldiers. and as far as having carried a heavy weapon around...been there, done that. the concept calls for the XM29 to weigh less then 12 lbs...thats a bit less then the M16/M203 combo, and way less then a loaded M249, both of which ive carried for extended periods of time. might look bulky, but if it's only 12 lbs loaded, i dont see a major problem here. that is, IF it only weighs 12 lbs.

[JunglistSoldier]

It's the bulk I'm more concerned about. Having carried the M240 i know that it's a bitch but it's doable. But just look at the size of that thing! No thanks.

[rob]

as far as leaping forward...1: the theories behind it lead me to believe the rifle will be considerably more reliable then the M16. the M16 design blows back gas/debris into the chamber...which leads to a lot of carbon buildup. the new design does not.



hk marketing. did they also tell you that the g36 has been snapping oprods in many cases. factory claims are not good. in the privet sector people have often gotten 4500 rounds before sleaning their ar15 and it still shot. while such numbers may not always be reached it does show what that "flawed" system is capable of. claims of extreme reliability have been made by every manufacturer for their product. the self cleaning m16 claim was a good example of this.

[Ratamacue]

Deut - before the XM29 is fielded, the XM25 will supplement the XM8. The XM25 is essentially just the grenade launcher portion of the '29, and it's highly possible that shotgun rounds and the like could be used. We'll find out.

[Durandal]

I think for the here and now, the M203 and M79 can handle the gap. The M79 has most of those rounds already. Might be a good idea to throw a few of those into each platoon. Maybe expand the number of types of rounds too; not necessarily instead of the OICW, but at least to have something to use for the next few years. Have a good one, just some thoughts...

The M79 was retired a fair number of years ago (at leasst form US military). I think the last thing a grenadier wants is to rely on a side arm to protect himself wile reloading a 40mm round.

I think what everyone is missing is that OICW is A) Not redy to be fielded yet and B) part of high tech system. I mean, by the time they have it ready, the Army is going to be field testing their MULEs and Remote Gun pods....sounds like sciencefiction, I know, BUT this part of the plan. The military is hopin to make a great leap in the next two decades. A greater leap even than was made betwwn 1990 and 2002.

[Deuterium]

I think for the here and now, the M203 and M79 can handle the gap. The M79 has most of those rounds already. Might be a good idea to throw a few of those into each platoon. Maybe expand the number of types of rounds too; not necessarily instead of the OICW, but at least to have something to use for the next few years. Have a good one, just some thoughts...

The M79 was retired a fair number of years ago (at leasst form US military). I think the last thing a grenadier wants is to rely on a side arm to protect himself wile reloading a 40mm round.



Not true. I still have it in my armsroom and it is always signed out on ops. In fact teams fight for them because we don't have that many. No one just carries the M-79 and a side-arm either. You carry it just like a shotgun, slug to the side and attached to your LBV in some fashion. SOme guys put it on the ruck as well.

[earl]

I've heard the M79 hasn't disappeared yet in some cases. What are the reasons why the M79 would be chosen today over an M203?

[Durandal]

Not true. I still have it in my armsroom and it is always signed out on ops. In fact teams fight for them because we don't have that many. No one just carries the M-79 and a side-arm either. You carry it just like a shotgun, slug to the side and attached to your LBV in some fashion. Some guys put it on the ruck as well.

Heheheh ok. Maybe in MP (those guys cram a WHOLE lot of stuff in their HUMVEEs) units for teargas, but that is about it. Regular Army and Reserves use the M203. The M79 is not issue nor has been for quite some time.

[BMF]

the reason the M79 is still in use is that it's breach, which breaks open at an angle (compared to the forward-sliding M203 allows the use of a much larger range of 40 mil rounds. gas, flares and smoke in particular are easier to use this way. The only problem with this is that the M79 is a whole different weapon (unlike the M203), and so it adds a fair amount of weight onto a soldiers' combat load. the proposed grenade launcher for the OICW(not the M29 system, but the single-shot one) is supposed to open by swinging to the side, which would allow these same larger rounds to be used. the 2 per squad are almost certainly for team leaders, so they can mark objectives for their team, and cover movement.

[JF45]

I have to agree that other than the grenade launcher, what can the OICW accomplish that the M-16 family can't? Even if it's scaled down to the desired size, how will it be revolutionary?

The M4 already has the size for urban/CQB environment. In fact, the OICW looks to extend the length of pull of the weapon. The rails on the M4 offer the modularity, so integration into the Land Warrior system only means making the right mounts. The OICW lacks back up sights, so what do you do if the electronic one fails or is damaged?

Be nice if they could build that grenade launcher to mount under an M-16. They could add a pistol grip for operating that would double as a vertical foregrip. Recoil would probably screw the lower assembly though. :(

Not to say that the OICW is crap, what makes it a better mousetrap?

[BMF]

I think one of the major changes comes more at the logistics side of the house. one family of weapons (OICW) vs the M4/M16, M203, M249, Mk12, etc means that replacing/repairing weapons and keeping them usable will be far easier. add this to the OCSW program(designed to replace the M240, Mk19, and M2HB) and you end up with a far easier picture from the procurment/maintenance end. That may not seem all that important from the outside, but if youve ever seen the havoc involved in keeping a large unit field-ready, you can imagine how much easier this could make things on the ordnance/ QM guys.

[NcDeuce]

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/apsu_army_rotc/aas.jpg

Light, fast & easy to load, pretty accurate...why get rid of it now?

[Durandal]

Light, fast & easy to load, pretty accurate...why get rid of it now?

I was not reccemending it be gotten rid of, only that the military has pretty much done just that.

Those specialized units that still have it would probably keep it and a sundry of other mission specific weapons.

We are talking about the rank and file military. I could see the newer grenade launcher to be much more useful in combat that the either the M79 OR M203.

It all comes down to doctrine and training at that point.

What is the role of the US armed forces in the coming years. If they are looking at stand up fights/battle en masse, then it makes little difference. If the role is small mobile Brigade sized (or smaller) units then it becomes a different ball of wax all together.

Bottom line, again, we have not seen a ready for production model yet nor have they even truly field tested the thing.

Wait and see...till then keep using what works. The M16AX and M4 are fine weapon systems as are their civilian counterparts. Maybe if the military spent a little bit more money on training and less on glitzy R&D projects, we might not even need it.

[Tane Angle]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head in regards to training. I still advocate taking the Marine approach, and focusing additionally(not instead of) on basic soldiering skills, like shooting. Make basic longer for all I care, just no more Lynch incidents hopefully. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Tane Angle]

earl, the M79 has a leg up on the M203 in range and round variation.

[BMF]

unfortunatly it can't be mounted on a rifle...which is it's single major downfall. Hopefully the next over/under launcher will have a swing open setup to get back that same variety of round selection.

also, on the matter of extending basic. the army is playing around with several ideas to do just that. included in this are ideas for a course to followup basic, which focuses on extending the basic soldiering/infantry skills. until then, most troops going to iraq nowadays run through some kind of in-home training before they ship out. a few buddies leaving armor OBC are heading to ft polk and their mammoth MOUT training setup to do just that before they join up with 2d ACR. however this is just a temporary setup. hopefully we do precisely what mr angle mentioned and extend the field part of basic

[Ratamacue]

unfortunatly it can't be mounted on a rifle...which is it's single major downfall. Hopefully the next over/under launcher will have a swing open setup to get back that same variety of round selection.

The XM320 (grenade launcher for the XM8) is essentially a modified AG36, which means that it swings out to the side to load.

[BMF]

heard something about them issuing that to team/squad leaders once the whole project was in full swing. heres' to hoping

[earl]

A question about current M203 usage/training: I don't think I've seen a quadrant sight in any current US operations, is only the leaf sight being used? And further, I've seen some sopmod kit M4's with no leaf sight either... would these guys (it was probably SF) have trained enough to make use of an M203 without any sights?

[REMOV]

I have to agree that other than the grenade launcher, what can the OICW accomplish that the M-16 family can't? Even if it's scaled down to the desired size, how will it be revolutionary? You and others guys still don't understand what is - or will be - the OICW.

It ISN'T a assault rifle with the overbarrel grenade launcher but self-loading grenade launcher with underbarrel assault rifle. The primary weapon is the GL not an assault rifle. The whole idea was - or is - revolutionary - because of significant increase of single soldier firepower.

It's not a ordinary grenade like 40mm which only flies in one direction and explode there but flat trajectory bullet. 25mm grenade can disable light armored vehicle, destroy enemies behind wall or in different situation. The assault rifle is additional, minor weapon use only when the grenade is not suitable.

That IS the OICW can accomplsh and the M16 family can't. Different approach (philospohy) to single soldier weaponry. That's all.
The M4 already has the size for urban/CQB environment. Right, carbines (or assault rifles) are still very useful in some situations, so the XM8 appears. The whole (paper I must admit) datas are better than M4. The OICW was never designed to replace all weapons for every soldier. The trend is - give a PDW to 70% soldiers and/or XM29/XM8 to rest of them.
The OICW lacks back up sights, so what do you do if the electronic one fails or is damaged?The idea of OICW IS the electronic sight - more powerful than anything else to directly hit an enemy and break off the philosophy "spray and pray" - chage into - "one grenade - one (or more) target(s)" A question what happens if the electronic fail is similar to the question what happens if an electronic in plane or tank fails. That's why the miliatry equipment is so havy duty and durable.
Be nice if they could build that grenade launcher to mount under an M-16. As I said, you cannot understand the idea of OICW, and compare it to normal combo: assault rifle plus grenade launcher, which OICW is not. That's why using flat trajectory 25mm not 40mm grenades - to control the fire well.
Not to say that the OICW is crap, what makes it a better mousetrap?Everything. This is new weapon category.

[Armour recon]

Too much electronics, I think. Plus it is powered by batteries. isn't it?

[BMF]

we already use batteries quite extensivly, so thats not a problem. I would rather like to see some kind of basic backup site for the 5.56 part of the m29, just in case murphy rears his ugly head. as a whole, i think the entire OICW program (not just the M29) has a helluva lot of potential.

[WARPIG]

From what I have heard of it the OICW is being publicised as a replacement, but I really doubt that that is what DOD has in mind. The OICW is a concept that brings a lot of different technologies together. The most impressive is the 20mm semi auto cannon. HE rounds being the bread and butter. Shot and shredder rounds, CS, smoke, etc are sure to be used. As an MP I can definately see a position for this weapon in my squad. Imagine running a convoy escort and having a 5 shot semi auto cannon of white phospherous rounds at your disposal. If you use the airburst option you have a chance of killing snipers that you may not see as well as screening your convoy's escape.
It is obvious that this will be a special use weapon that will augment a fire team or squad. 40mm frag rounds from a 203 may be too much for some MOUT uses but a 20mm may be more widely used. If a variety of rounds gets used this part of the OICW will be an awsome addition.
Don't forget the whole Land Warrior and Objective Warrior concepts. In full implementation these systems aren't going to be for every soldier. Maybe a weapon with some technology that the landwarrior system has will be a mid-step for those units that don't rate a Landwarrior in their TO&E. Every platform will have different soldiers and tasks in mind.
Just look at the way logistics is starting to work. It used to be that the DOD awarded contracts to equipment and weapon builders to outfit the entire force with one universal tool.(M16) Now different units are fitted with different types of weapons. Tankers may use more compact weapons while Scouts and MP's will turn to more firepower. Foot soldiers will have uniforms and gear that is customized to make the soldier a weapon platform while the armored vehicle transported troops have gear that allows them to operate in those conditions more readily.
I really see less and less "uniform" looking forces in our future. Combat effectiveness is taking more precedence over the rigid traditional thinking we have known. OICW is another step towards that. It won't be the work weapon of the mass of our forces but it is definately going to be an affective addition to our arsenal.

[REMOV]

The most impressive is the 20mm semi auto cannon. HE rounds being the bread and butter.It was changed to 25mm grenades the same as OCSW (XM307) have.

[Armour recon]

we already use batteries quite extensivly, so thats not a problem. I would rather like to see some kind of basic backup site for the 5.56 part of the m29, just in case murphy rears his ugly head. as a whole, i think the entire OICW program (not just the M29) has a helluva lot of potential.


But what I would like to know is that how does it perform in extreme weather condititions. And what type of soldier uses it?

[Deuterium]

It's not a ordinary grenade like 40mm which only flies in one direction and explode there but flat trajectory bullet. 25mm grenade can disable light armored vehicle, destroy enemies behind wall or in different situation. The assault rifle is additional, minor weapon use only when the grenade is not suitable.



Bahahahahaha. What a joke!!! Yeah this might work if the enemy exposes himself and is static. In the real world the enemy is dynamic. I've just lost mine because I'm lugging around an unwieldy, overweight PIG!!!

[WARPIG]

Think about airburst HE rounds when you need to hit a rooftop sniper that has ducked down or taken cover. Not exactly useless. The prototypes are bulky as hell but if it is comparable to a SAW and adds the rapidfire of HE rounds.. I think it could be a good tradeoff.

[REMOV]

Yeah this might work if the enemy exposes himself and is static. In the real world the enemy is dynamic. So what? If you can hit enemies with normal 5,56mm bullet, the chance grows with 25mm grenade and sophisticated FCS (Fire Control System - XM104) - the heart of OICW (XM29). It will be capable of tracking enemy soldiers or vehicles to increase hit probability. Sorry, Deuterium, but you know nothing about OICW, right especially dimensions and weight? The XM29 will be lighter than M16A2+M203. The problems aren't with gun itself but with tne FCS computer.

[WARPIG]

Only prob with OICW that I see is that it has software problems. The thing has to work "lo-tech" as well. One thing I heard was that when a Marine Officer inspecting the program asked if the thing would hold up if it ran out of ammo and was used to bludgeon the enemy to death. At the time the answer was no.
If the program runs like the current develpment programs.. the tech used is "off the shelf." It is prototype weaponry slapped together with some optics and tech hardware with some existing software to run it. This is cheaper and faster than going through expensive prototype after prototype. Training can also happen as the development progresses.
XM29 is the latest model. I don't know what the next step will be but as far as I have heard the OICW is the military acronym for the weapon concept. Several contractors were going after it the last I heard. H&K and FN were the two prototypes I saw. The H&K version is what you probably are seeing Deut. It looks like a macho mailbox with buttons. The XM29 is better looking.. and the FN2000 is also a phasor looking version.

[BMF]

as far as who is going to use the M29...the current plan is to use 4 per infantry squad. i'd imagine MP's would use it a lot as well. the concept would also make a lot of sense for convoy work. beyond those, I would imagine the M8 will be the most visable part of the whole program.

[Deuterium]

Yeah this might work if the enemy exposes himself and is static. In the real world the enemy is dynamic. So what? If you can hit enemies with normal 5,56mm bullet, the chance grows with 25mm grenade and sophisticated FCS (Fire Control System - XM104) - the heart of OICW (XM29). It will be capable of tracking enemy soldiers or vehicles to increase hit probability. Sorry, Deuterium, but you know nothing about OICW, right especially dimensions and weight? The XM29 will be lighter than M16A2+M203. The problems aren't with gun itself but with tne FCS computer.

Dream on. Maybe that can make it happen. Enemy squad moving in on your position. With this POS I need to stop, laze, punch buttons to select where I want the round to bursdt, before or after the range I just lazed. Oh yeah this is what I want in my hands when being attacked. No thankyou.

[Ratamacue]

Don't forget that you can probably set it to explode on contact like a 40mm grenade.

[Deuterium]

Don't get me wrong, as I said before I think the grenade launcher piece has a place as a stand alone weapon. The combination of the two, rifle and grenade launcher, turns this from a functioning weapon, into an unmanagable anchor.

[Ratamacue]

Well Deut, as I (think I) said earlier in the thread, prior to the introduction of the full XM29 they're going to field both the XM8 and XM25. The XM25 is simply the grenade launcher/FCS portion of the weapon. From there they plan to perfect each component individually before combining them into the XM29.

https://peosoldier.army.mil/program_images/xm25.jpg

[irishmike21]

ratemcue the xm29 when the technology is together still isnt goign to replace the xm8 the xm8 is a seperate system that is derived from the xm29 . THe xm8 will be fielding 5 out of the nine men in the squad while the remaining four will use the xm29 if the technology becomes available the army plans to buy 900,000 xm8's and 22,000 xm29 the xm8 will be introduced far sooner than the xm29 thats what the army has in mind ath the moment

[Durandal]

ratemcue the xm29 when the technology is together still isnt goign to replace the xm8 the xm8 is a seperate system that is derived from the xm29 . THe xm8 will be fielding 5 out of the nine men in the squad while the remaining four will use the xm29 if the technology becomes available the army plans to buy 900,000 xm8's and 22,000 xm29 the xm8 will be introduced far sooner than the xm29 thats what the army has in mind ath the moment

And peope think the OICW is idiotic? This has got be the biggest bunch of bull. The XM8 is money talking and not much else. We don't know if the OICW will ever work correctly or be of ANY use, YET we will replace all our current working rifles with similar rifles that do the same EXACT thing...project a 5.56mm bullet. That is it. In fact, they will be less accurate than the M16AX since the barrel is SO much shorter (keep in mind that they are talking about giving just about everyone carbines with the exception of the DM team).

This si the one thing that has always apalled me about the DoD, their prcurement system. They deal politics and cash and no common sense. Generals that are close to retirement get set up early beforehand so long as they approve of certain programs.

Will they work, probably, but the point is that it is simply a HUGE WASTE of tax dollars. You NEVER try to use technology to fill training gaps. That is part of what is happening and it drives me nuts.

The whole thing makes me ill and for once (alog with the Comanche project) I feel that the Defense Industry is nothing but a bunch of demons that turn desk generals and politicians into whores at a cost to our troops and tax payers.

[Deuterium]

And peope think the OICW is idiotic? This has got be the biggest bunch of bull. The XM8 is money talking and not much else. We don't know if the OICW will ever work correctly or be of ANY use, YET we will replace all our current working rifles with similar rifles that do the same EXACT thing...project a 5.56mm bullet.

Well on this we agree.

[Durandal]

Well on this we agree.

Hey, I try. :)

[WARPIG]

Maybe our procurement system has some personnel that are flawed. The way logistics is headed is going to benefit us though. We will see a lot more specialized units. Stryker BDE, Landwarrior units, Comanche Wings, etc. All of these will be specialized units with training focused on their equipment and the strengths that they bring. Same with the OICW. It will bring about special weapons squads or at least fire teams. Those Joes will have specific weapons training that will make them extremely proficient in the use of the HEAB round.
Don't forget that the M16 was thought of as a money pit, was a political addition to the military arsenal, and had it's share of problems in a highly controversial conflict. Look at how far it has come today.
I'm sorry durandal.... The weapon as it sets is a turd riht now. But, in the long run, I really see the weapon as a positive addition.

[Hydro]

Will they work, probably, but the point is that it is simply a HUGE WASTE of tax dollars. You NEVER try to use technology to fill training gaps. That is part of what is happening and it drives me nuts.

The whole thing makes me ill and for once (alog with the Comanche project) I feel that the Defense Industry is nothing but a bunch of demons that turn desk generals and politicians into whores at a cost to our troops and tax payers.

I agree with you so much on the tech/training point, battery power is no substitute for training power.

I think a similar thing is happening in the UK, we've been trying to develop FIST (Future Integrated Soldier Technology) for a while now. Rather than spend urgently needed money on urgently needed decent basic equipment (we've only just adopted a proper section LMG, and 40mm grenade launcher), the MoD is spending millions on just trying to stay up there with the big boys. I'm all for soldier modernisation, but please can we get our priorities right...

Politicians and beaurocrats (Sp) at the MoD seem to think the more bells and whistles something has, then it must be so much better, and then spend millions on it, only for it to fail. (SA80 is a prime example of this).

[WARPIG]

Just a thought. By the look of the selector buttons on the prototypes, it looks like a similar function as a selector switch on a traditional rifle. I think fingering a button or two and looking through a sighting device before pumping 6 HEAB rounds into an area is a little easier and faster than lifting a sight assembly, adjusting the range slide (after estimating the range), sighting the gawky plastic sight, and fireing one round, reloading and sighting, fire, reload and sight.... get the picture?


Also, there is a new trend in weapons and equipment contractors.. they are hiring soldiers as consultants and quality engineers. SGT somebody gets to go consult company X about what makes sense in the field. That way the weapon doesn't get developed and fielded without some one thinking about how to put the ammo in a ammo pouch or vest pocket. The soldiers come from combat units and are asked on how to apply the equipment to their experiences.

[Armour recon]

When the weather gets freezing, gets wet, and you bring it back to tent or leave it outside...makes me wonder. Lot's of IF questions.

[REMOV]

Dream on. Maybe that can make it happen. Only 5 to 10 years and you suddenly wake up in the world of OICW ;)
Enemy squad moving in on your position. With this POS I need to stop, laze, punch buttons to select where I want the round to bursdt, before or after the range I just lazed. Oh yeah this is what I want in my hands when being attacked. No thankyou.One click and you turn on the rangefinder. Second - put mark tracking on one of target. Third - press the trigger. Easy? Or maybe you are ost using THREE buttons? Boy, got any problem with the keyboard? ;)

Still don't understand what is the OICW, right Deuterium? Like the tribal man with a bow looking at an assault rifle ;)

[Adri]

it looks good...but I havent tested it...

so I said "good" and I don't think I wil ever use it as toilet paper.... :roll:

[Deuterium]

Dream on. Maybe that can make it happen. Only 5 to 10 years and you suddenly wake up in the world of OICW ;)
Enemy squad moving in on your position. With this POS I need to stop, laze, punch buttons to select where I want the round to bursdt, before or after the range I just lazed. Oh yeah this is what I want in my hands when being attacked. No thankyou.One click and you turn on the rangefinder. Second - put mark tracking on one of target. Third - press the trigger. Easy? Or maybe you are ost using THREE buttons? Boy, got any problem with the keyboard? ;)

Still don't understand what is the OICW, right Deuterium? Like the tribal man with a bow looking at an assault rifle ;)

I'll take that bet. What say you?

[Beowulf]

I'll take that bet. What say you?
.......O'Reilly? Is it you?

[Deuterium]

I'll take that bet. What say you?
.......O'Reilly? Is it you?

Good one, maybe I AM indoctrinated.

[FuturePara]

Okay I'm new to this topic and all these damn designations have got me WAY confused.
The XM-8=The stand alone carbine that is aimed to replace the M-4/M-16
The XM-25=The grenade launcher that attaches to the XM-8 as a stand alone weapon?
The XM-28=?
The XM-29=The OICW?

[Haiw]

As far as I know:
XM-8 = standalone 5.56mm replacement of the M-4/M-16
XM-25 = A standalone 20mm grenadelauncher, not attachable to the XM-8 as that's what they're getting the XM-320 (HK69) for
XM-29 = OICW, so 5.56 portion and a 20mm grenadelauncher combined.
XM-28 = typo

Just want to mention this....

Most people are rating the gun on how it looks...PERIOD

It's a great rifle, good accuracy, you can attach a grenade launcher to it too. I hear great reviews by the army...so why would you say it's bad? Just because it looks a little funny?

[California Joe]

Now Here's a pretty rifle. I built it. So what if it's a little outdated....

http://www.jeffsforums.com/wwwattach/10-352634-rich.gif

[Deuterium]

Just want to mention this....

Most people are rating the gun on how it looks...PERIOD

It's a great rifle, good accuracy, you can attach a grenade launcher to it too. I hear great reviews by the army...so why would you say it's bad? Just because it looks a little funny?

I agree its based on looks. The look of the gun is HHHUUUUUGGGGGEEEE. Not the weapon I want to be IMTing with, get in/get out of a HMMWV or a NTV, CQB in a house trying to move around furniture and hallways, jumping this PIG out of an airplane, or patrolling in thick vegetation. I've said it before, unless you have ever patrolled with a weapon in your hands before you really don't realize what would be good or bad to have. If your entire experience is deer hunting or carrying your weapon from the car to the range then you're in for a rude awakening when you join the military.

[California Joe]

So you don't like my rifle Top?

[Deuterium]

I never have fired any blackpowder rifles. I have some friends that do. What's the stock? Looks purty.

[California Joe]

Tiger stripe maple. Natural camoflage. Heh.

PS I agree with your assessment of the "pig" in question. Unwieldy looking thing.

[Deuterium]

Tiger Stripe Maple.... Beautiful stock.

[BMF]

the thing is bulky, sure...but if it's under 12 lbs like they plan, i dont see its size being a problem. the SAW is just as big, weighs even more, yet it gets the job done. personally I have doubts about the M29 actually ever getting all of it's problems figured out, but the FAMILY of weapons, as a whole, has a lot of potential.

[Durandal]

Now Here's a pretty rifle. I built it. So what if it's a little outdated....

...but California legal! :)

Very nice. When you mean built, does that include making your own parts or was it a kit? Just curious.

BTW, do you know anyone that is looking for customs walnut blanks? I have a saw mill and a WHOLE lot of walnut.

[Deuterium]

the thing is bulky, sure...but if it's under 12 lbs like they plan, i dont see its size being a problem. the SAW is just as big, weighs even more, yet it gets the job done. personally I have doubts about the M29 actually ever getting all of it's problems figured out, but the FAMILY of weapons, as a whole, has a lot of potential.

hmmmm

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/LBOX/mini/921328.jpg

http://www.hkpro.com/oicwcasing.jpg

Same size as a SAW.....NOT!!!!!!!!! Hell my rucksack is smaller than this PIG!!

[Operation Ivy]

But its not that big anymore! :P theres a couple pics out there of the newer versions. Ratamacue has posted them a couple of times :D

[Deuterium]

Post em!!

[BMF]

ok so the para-version is a bit smaller, but i have zero time with it. my point was that a loaded M29 is going to weigh as much as an UN loaded SAW. the plan I saw for the M29 was that it would weigh 12 lbs loaded. a saw weighs bit more then that unloaded (the 200 rd box is another 6.9 lbs). to be quite honest i dont reall give a rats ass how bulky it is. if it only weighs 12 lbs, i think i could deal with it. also, the pic you posted isnt the newer version. it's getting smaller as time goes on. and before I even hear **** about it, ive spent my time with a ruck on my back and a rifle in my hands

[Durandal]

Post em!!

I think he was talking about this version...which probably is not going to be the last or the second to last. :)

http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/107617/9.jpg

[Tane Angle]

I'm still having issues with the lack of iron sights :( .

[Operation Ivy]

Yea those are pics i was talking bout that Durandal posted

[Ratamacue]

Tane, I highly doubt the weapon will be put into production without backup sights, even if they're a couple notches. Could be that the FCS will be removeable to reveal a rail or something of the sort that you could plant sights on.

[Durandal]

Tane, I highly doubt the weapon will be put into production without backup sights, even if they're a couple notches. Could be that the FCS will be removeable to reveal a rail or something of the sort that you could plant sights on.

What I do nto see is any modular compatability with the XM8, which I have read it was supposed to have. The lower receiver looks completely different EVEN if the internal parts are the same...

I have to reappraise my thoughts on this. Think about this. On the ideas behind this platform was was to reduce the amount of different weapons needed in small units and to increase precision firepower.

This current plan NOW is to use a couple XM29s, a couple XM8s, and couple XM25s or whatever the comboa of greande and shotgun weapons are, who knows.

Sounds like they are back to a logistical nightmare again.

WTF.

Sounds like the greenbucks are talking louder than common sense...

Anyone else getting htese vibe or am I the only one bitchN?

Oh, and I hope everyone is having a good weekend!

Cheers!

[Haiw]

Ok...so basically you've got a club the size of a Bergen rucksack, without iron-sights, and even poorer accuracy and bullet performance because the barrel's even shorter than a M4 barrel...
Well, guess you Americans better start learning to speak Arab ;)

[JF45]

Now Here's a pretty rifle. I built it. So what if it's a little outdated....

http://www.jeffsforums.com/wwwattach/10-352634-rich.gif
Is the smoke for concealment while you exfil? :D

[Roger Rabbit]

No it's to send smoke signals to the battalion commander so he knows which individual soldiers are firing :lol:

[Tane Angle]

Actually Haiw, I think someone mentioned that it can't be used as a club, too fragile or something. :roll: :D

[Haiw]

Actually Haiw, I think someone mentioned that it can't be used as a club, too fragile or something. :roll: :D
rofl
So all that's left is...errm...well...errm...geez...errm...$25,000 worth of scrap a piece? :D

Anyway, about the 'simple 3-button-controls'....I recall reading somewhere that when the **** hits the fan in combat, most people just let it rip and often aim with only the front sights, or don't even aim at all.... Now can someone explain to me how a simple grunt when he's being under fire, has his adrenaline pumping, and hardly knows what he's doing and is simply functioning for the most part on 'auto-pilot', can work with that fire control computer??

[BMF]

just something i keep seeing. barrel length is not the only determining factor when it comes to range/accuracy. several other variables factor in.

[Durandal]

just something i keep seeing. barrel length is not the only determining factor when it comes to range/accuracy. several other variables factor in.

Yeah, but in this case, a 10" maybe 8" barrel DOES become a factor, regardless of what grain ammo you are using. Point is, the gun part will probably be good to about 100 meters maybe less. Probably less...

Then again, most militaries do not train marksmen and most combat happens within the 100 meter range, so...

It is NOT going to be as accurate as an M4 and not even close to an M16AX.

[BMF]

the american military has almost an obsession with is soldiers being able to shoot at range. i cant see us putting out a rifle with such a problem. personally, i doubt the M29, at least as it's currently seen, will make it into production in the next 15 years. I'm far more interested in the other aspects of the program

[REMOV]

I'm still having issues with the lack of iron sights :( .Incorrigible people ;) Modern US planes don't fly by computer fly-by-wire system and without FCS don't destroy the enemy tanks or warships, modern US tanks don't fire with FCS, fire-and-forget US Javelin missile don't hit the target without FCS but regardless of common sense every US rifle MUST have a iron sights, right? ;)

Well, without a FCS the OICW or M29 it's only very heavy and bulky grenade launcher with underbarrel rifle, BUT with FCS it's a new kind of weapon. Without FCS M1A2 is moving target, F22 is useless kite and Javelin is piece of ****, trust me.

I'm still very surprised reading opinions like that, and I don't know how many times someone wrote down M29 IS NOT a assault rifle with underbarrel grenade launcher. The assault rifle is additional element of the gun. So the length of the rifle barrel doesn't matter at all. That's why the FCS is - to helps hit the right target. And the problem still lies in FCS not in the weapon.

[REMOV]

Now can someone explain to me how a simple grunt when he's being under fire, has his adrenaline pumping, and hardly knows what he's doing and is simply functioning for the most part on 'auto-pilot', can work with that fire control computer??The answer is (and always was) the same - RIGHT TRAINING. And who is a "simple grunt" nowadays, huh? The army is transforming to professional warriors and you thinking about conscripts soldiers?

So, M29 is complicated, M16A2 is very hard to use and I even souldn't ask for Javelin, TOW, mortar or a sniper rifle (man, you should know a math to be a sniper!), maybe you should come back to throwing stones using slingshot if THREE buttons are very hard to control for you ;)

[REMOV]

I agree its based on looks. The look of the gun is HHHUUUUUGGGGGEEEE. I ask you once if you know something about OICW/XM29. I see the answer is still the same. But you cannot stop to argue about something you even don't know how looks like (you posted one of prototype models from 1998).

http://dboy.cpgl.net/USA/oicw/xm29block3_3.jpg
"HHHUUUUUGGGGGEEEE"? It is XM29 Block 3.

[Seoulstriker]

^^that is a short barrel. http://forums.studentdoctor.net/ubbfiles/ubb/eek.gif

[Haiw]

http://dboy.cpgl.net/USA/oicw/xm29block3_3.jpg
"HHHUUUUUGGGGGEEEE"? It is XM29 Block 3.
Is that a working weapon or just a mock thingy for the photo's...

Anyway, having to program a grenade launcher all the time when you want to use the 20mm is just...bad..
I'd like to refer to something that I know is not really credible, but still:
In the PC game Soldier of Fortune 2 there was in the whole range of weapons both a M4/M203 combination and a fairly realistic OICW; you'd have 3 button controls, a 6x zoom, pretty much everything the way it is on the real thing...guess what? The OICW sucked on comparisson to the M4/M203... Why? Well, maybe because playing around with a bunch of buttons is not something you do when under fire (I know it's in a game, but the same goes for a big part for the real thing as well). I mean, the US have got a perfectly functioning 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher. It's got nice ironsights, and it works quick and clean without a whole bunch of buttons and stuff. Why replace that? As good old murphy would say: KISS!

[Tane Angle]

Well, great if it's a new kind of weapon, but bad if the sight is damaged or destroyed by debris or a fragment or something of that nature. The shooter needs to be able to fight not only with the advantage, but when cut off and low on ammunition. The shooter must be able to make every shot count. That's dang tough to do with no sights. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[California Joe]

Plus it's still BUTT UGLY.

[Haiw]

The shooter needs to be able to fight not only with the advantage, but when cut off and low on ammunition.
Or when the 'LOW BATTERY' icon starts flashing on the FCS screen :lol:

[Herrmannek]

The shooter needs to be able to fight not only with the advantage, but when cut off and low on ammunition.
Or when the 'LOW BATTERY' icon starts flashing on the FCS screen :lol:

This isn't problem anymore :)
http://www.solareagle.com/images/baygen_lantern.gif

[BMF]

difference betwwn not having iron sights on this, compared to a tank or an airplane, is simple. tanks have armor (and backup sights too), aircraft have redundant systems. A rifleman doesnt have the time or space do deal with replacing/fixing it if **** goes bad, so iron sights are a must have for any weapon. period. just plain simple murphys law. something WILL go wrong, and if it does? you have a 12 lb weapon that only fires a 5.56 round through a very short barrel. im rather hoping the final version will have some kind of default setting where the 20 mil rounds go off on contact unless otherwise set. again, i doubt this thing will be out before 2020, so any prototypes, whether built by HK or the army, are just dreams and plans.

[Durandal]

Just to point out...

A Vietnam era M14 weighs 5.1kg or about 12 lbs...

[Durandal]

Another interesting thing...

SUPPOSEDLY...

The sight is a digital sight. You can look via the optic piece or a HUD (as seen in the image posted above. The thing registers windage and compensates. It does this for the greande launcher AND the carbine. A quick slight pressure to the trigger gives you the data...a red dot, just like any reddot, and green to represent where to line the red dot up...

Not too sure how valuable this would be considering the carbine portion is soo short.

On a related note, FN Herstal are doing the same thing with the F2000

http://www.ets-news.com/images/F2000_2.jpg

The F2000's sight is mounted a Picatinny rail that sits on the top of the gun, so ironsights can be swapped on in place of the laser rangefinder/40mm grenade ballistic range finder.

I think, like all things, if the process is simple and the troops are trained, using the slightly more complex rangefinder is possible. Though there are certainly plenty of situations where it would never be used.

The interesting thing also is that the carbine/rifle is bullpup and more than twice as long as the OICW.

Let's also not try to use video games a reference to reallife please. Since they NEVER are.

[GazB]

The real problem I can see with the OICW is that in real combat the troops are simply going to set the grenade launcher to impact detonation and aim for the chest.

If the purpose behind the OICW is to replace the M16A2/M203 combo then it makes sense, and the short barrel shouldn't be a problem as the soldiers who use its' primary role is grenadier. With the old M79 when they ran out of grenades they were armed with a .45 cal pistol. The M16A2/M203 combo gave them a rifle as well as a single shot grenade launcher... this step forward is about enhancing the power of the grenade launcher rather than giving them a sniper rifle.

[Haiw]

Let's also not try to use video games a reference to reallife please. Since they NEVER are.
I normally don't either, but in this case it simulated the controls of the OICW pretty well, and it was just to illustrate that having to mess around with button's in reality just blows...

The FN2000 looks at least somewhat better to me, though I'm no expert.

[REMOV]

Is that a working weapon or just a mock thingy for the photo's...Another prototype model.
Anyway, having to program a grenade launcher all the time when you want to use the 20mm is just...bad..First thing - the 25mm grenade NOT 20mm. And the second thing - who told you that you must all the time program the grenade (NOT grenade launcher!)? It's bull****, the grenades are programmable but it doesn't mean you must always program them.
In the PC game Soldier of Fortune 2 there was in the whole range of weapons both a M4/M203 combination and a fairly realistic OICW you'd have 3 button controls, a 6x zoom, pretty much everything the way it is on the real thing...guess what? The OICW sucked on comparisson to the M4/M203... Why? Because it is computer game? ;)
I mean, the US have got a perfectly functioning 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher. You know the very first 40mm grenade launchers for SPIW? They were soldiers nightmare. The XM148 was also a mistake, BUT the next one i.e. XM203 are quite good working, right? So you cannot tell how will be "perfectly functioning" 25mm grenade because you don't know it at all. Tghe first step is the stand alone self loading GL i.e. XM25 (compare to the XM79) and FCS. The next step is to combine grenade launcher with a underbarrel carbine and FCS- XM29.
It's got nice ironsights, and it works quick and clean without a whole bunch of buttons and stuff. Why replace that? Well, a musket also work well, tell me why we replaced them with modern rifles? The 40mm grenades AREN'T a perfect solution (as you see it) so the scientists always seek a better. The 25mm programmable grenade IS better than 40mm, but it is still developing.
As good old murphy would say: KISS!Use the fork (or knife), Luke. It cannot breaks down mechanically at all.

[REMOV]

Well, great if it's a new kind of weapon, but bad if the sight is damaged or destroyed by debris or a fragment or something of that nature. See any iron sight on the M82A1 (XM107) Barrett?
The shooter needs to be able to fight not only with the advantage, but when cut off and low on ammunition.Yeah, that's why OICW works also WITHOUT batteries. The prototype from 1998 have the additional (backup) iron sights and the FCS without batteries acts like a normal 3x optical sight.
The shooter must be able to make every shot count.I don't understand your point.

[REMOV]

The real problem I can see with the OICW is that in real combat the troops are simply going to set the grenade launcher to impact detonation and aim for the chest.Not always. Think about urban combat - for instance you cannot hit directly a sniper located ca. 400m away at the roof of 4-floor building but you easly hit them using air burst mode of OICW. The advantage of 25mm grenade are flat trajectory (and a range) and several detonating options.

[REMOV]

If the purpose behind the OICW is to replace the M16A2/M203 combo then it makes sense, and the short barrel shouldn't be a problem as the soldiers who use its' primary role is grenadier. Not exactly, look (the actual and suggested squad weapons):

http://dboy.cpgl.net/USA/oicw/squad9.jpg

So in the first phase 2 XM29/OICW, 5 XM8 (two of them with XM320) and 2 M249 SAW, and in the second - 4 XM29, 3 XM8 (two with XM320) and 2 M249 SAW.

[BMF]

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html good info on the project.

[Durandal]

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/xm8.html good info on the project.

Yeah, I think that advertisement was posted in the XM8 thread. If you go to www.army.mil you will find several articles that CLAIM that the XM8 is not written in stone and that the board refuses to sign off on it.

Which is interesting considering H&K is building a plant already.

[BMF]

one word: politics

[Durandal]

one word: politics

Well, yeah that is agiven, but I am really wanting to know what kind of politics at this point. It is sooooo transparent at this point. To be quite honest, I thinkt he DoD and the Army board has already given the green light regardless...

[BMF]

2 problems, both revolving around the political end. one: our government has more immediate concerns, and B: funding. plus all this talk of expanding the army...I just dont know where the money to put this set of weapons into widespread production is going to come from. we have enough production problems making munitions, body armor...and replacement parts for damn near everything, plus the logistics(and costs) of the upcoming move of troops to/from iraq... we'll see

[Durandal]

2 problems, both revolving around the political end. one: our government has more immediate concerns, and B: funding. plus all this talk of expanding the army...I just dont know where the money to put this set of weapons into widespread production is going to come from. we have enough production problems making munitions, body armor...and replacement parts for damn near everything, plus the logistics(and costs) of the upcoming move of troops to/from iraq... we'll see

Don't forget projects like the F-22 and the Comanche...both of which are COMPLETLY unnessary (tech for techs sake, not threat defense) take away from the most important aspect...training. Which I am sure you are all tired of me saying. :)

I guess this is just more proof that America has NEVER left a wartime footing since 1945...spend spend spend...

[REMOV]

Don't forget projects like the F-22 and the Comanche...both of which are COMPLETLY unnessaryWell you know it right now. But they were developed during the Cold War as a normal part of the arms race (the ATF/Senior Sky program began in 1983!). Nobody knows that in 2003 there would be no enemies to fight with F/A-22 ;)

[Durandal]

Don't forget projects like the F-22 and the Comanche...both of which are COMPLETLY unnessaryWell you know it right now. But they were developed during the Cold War as a normal part of the arms race (the ATF/Senior Sky program began in 1983!). Nobody knows that in 2003 there would be no enemies to fight with F/A-22 ;)

We knew in 1992. Over a decade ago.

[BMF]

just a random fact bout the F-22 and why i think it's somewhat necesary... back in the day when i was taking flight lessons..i found an ooold magazine..the cover article read: Air Force's brand new fighter! the F 15 Eagle!! on the back... "Coming soon; star wars: empire strikes back" most of the people on this forum weren't even alive when that movie came out. and I doubt any of us regularly drive a car that old (excluding vintage cars hidden in garages only driven 10 times a year).

[Durandal]

just a random fact bout the F-22 and why i think it's somewhat necesary... back in the day when i was taking flight lessons..i found an ooold magazine..the cover article read: Air Force's brand new fighter! the F 15 Eagle!! on the back... "Coming soon; star wars: empire strikes back" most of the people on this forum weren't even alive when that movie came out. and I doubt any of us regularly drive a car that old (excluding vintage cars hidden in garages only driven 10 times a year).

Yeah, but these were designed to meet threats they had then. Keep in mind the F-15 was NEVER intended as a strike aircraft, and now that is its most useful function.

No country right now is even close to matching America's airpower force projections...no one. It will be more than a couple decades before the do too. Who in the world can afford to build an F-22? Or a support force to make their airforces work properly (not just ground control)? My vote would be the Chinese, but they still are having probelms with their current line of their newest plane, the Super-7 (replacing their J-7 and Mig-21s and Q-5s). The Eurofighter, while a sexy plane is still not even close to an F-22 and will probably stand in parity with F-16s and 15s (since it is a dual roll platform).

No, unlike the late 60s and early 70s, we KNOW the limitations of developing a generational leap in a dual role military aircraft. This is not the Cold War and we do not (even America) have the luxcury of spending money on a plane that will not have a viable threat for twenty to fifty years.

[BMF]

another random fact that you brought to mind. 3rd largest air force on earth: the boneyard. airfield in the western U.S. of retired aircraft. as of late its where we've been resurrecting a lot of out A10's. now THAT is an aircraft to love. simple, but nothing better ever has or will exist at taking out armored vehicles, short of a death star, that is ;) anyways back to the topic. ok so in aircraft...yea the money could probably be better spent. but as far as small arms goes, any small nation can develop their own rifle, and unlike the F-22, the XM8 will definetly see a LOT of use. also, the XM* isnt some incredible breakthrough, it's just us trying to make the best weapon we can for the current times. light, accurate, reliable, mission-flexible, easy to maintain, and VERY easy on the logistics end.

[martinexsquaddie]

pity they can't reserrect some AFV training as well

[Durandal]

simple, but nothing better ever has or will exist at taking out armored vehicles, short of a death star, that is ;)

This is a incorrect assumption. During the first Gulf War, LOTS of platforms killed tanks and were good at it. Take the F111 for example (decomissioned now) it took out over 1500 tanks. More than half of the tank kills were from guided munitions, mainly the Maverick. Today, do have MUCH better AT aviation weapons...you will begin to read a lot about Iraq in the coming years. You will see tha tin fact, the aircraft with the most tank kills were probably not the A-10.

THe United States no longer has the capability/financial will to maintain a role specific aricraft. One of the valid purposes behind the F-22...F-15, A-10, F117, F111 all get replaced by a single platform that is capable of doing all their jobs just as well...in theory.

Also getting back to the point is that, in theory, the XM8 and eventually the OICW will do the same thing, but I also understnad how the DoD works and right now politics and money are running the show.

[REMOV]

Take the F111 for example (decomissioned now) it took out over 1500 tanks.How many? ;)

[BMF]

actually, the air force has no intention of replacing the A10 with any of the aircraft in development. the FB-111 is(was) a light bomber, not an AT platform. Heres' the #'s from the 1st gulf war: 144 A 10s flew 8,755 sorties, with confirmed kills as follows: 1100 truckes, 987 tanks, 920 arty pieces, 500 APCs, 250 command vehicles, 51 SCUDs, 96 SAM sites, 10 parked aircraft, and 2 air-air kills on helos. these are only the confirmed one, the numbers in reality are actually higher. thats a large percentage of the air-mud kills, and 144 isnt a whole lot of aircraft. I say again: the A10 is the greatest air-mud aircraft out there.

[Royal]

Other than Scuds RTA's and suicide it was also the biggest killer of US and UK ground troops. Apache wasn't far behind.

[BMF]

fraid so, but thats a risk inherent in close air support. if i remember right, there were 3 incidents of "blue on blue" engagements...the new, sanitized term for friendly fire. But lets face it, thats going to happen. is it tragic? yes. but unfortunatly CAS is not a perfect science. its an aircraft flying in over the front lines, doing its best to tell the sheep from the wolves. in the long run, CAS flights saved countless lives, taking out all those thousands of vehicles. it wouldnt have been any different if a tornado had been flying all those same missions the A10's were taking on

[GazB]

There is certainly no doubt these were mistakes, but they would sit better if it weren't for the lies. When first released an A-10 attack on a British unit of APCs was described as being at night in a dust storm in the middle of battle. When footage was released of the victims just before the attack it was the middle of the day, clear blue sky with little wind and with soldiers just wandering around... some sitting on the immobile vehicles others just wandering around.

Equally when a NATO pilot blew up some Kosovars on tractors the first report blamed the Serbs. Even after the war many in the military denied they hit a non military target. I have seen an interview of a guy who lost his arm in the incident and he said he could see 3km in each direction of the convoy and he could not see any military vehicles. He still supported what NATO was doing of course. Don't know whether those who lost whole families would give that same support.

[Tane Angle]

Regarding the A10, it can take a heck of a beating and keep on flying, and it can get in real close, unlike a lot of other aircraft. Besides for CAS, it's great at CSAR work as well. Could it use a computer upgrade? Probably, but I don't know much about aircraft weapons guidance systems, as my piloting experience is very limited. It's real nice to have an A10 covering one's back, same for the AC130, and to an extent, the AH1. The Apache...no offense to the Apache folks, but the Marines might have been right on that one. Anyways, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Durandal]

Take the F111 for example (decomissioned now) it took out over 1500 tanks.How many? ;)

Heheh sorry, THEY, not it. :cantbeli:

[Durandal]

actually, the air force has no intention of replacing the A10 with any of the aircraft in development. the FB-111 is(was) a light bomber, not an AT platform.

Umm hey dude, not to rain on your A-10 parade. It is getting replaced other planes have killed more tanks than A-10s, sorry. Other aircraft are being used for CAS. Look at A-stan. We had a hundred SF guys running aorund supported by F-14s, F-18s, B-52s, and B-1s. We had B-52s and B-1s RUIN, absolutely RUIN an Iraqi division that sortied from Bagdhad in less than a 24 hour period.

And yes, the F-111s in the first Gulf War killed 1500 tanks. I can get you all the data you can want.

More than half the kills the A-10s had were with guided precision munitions done from a high altitude.

What aircraft contributed the most injured, dead, and/or captured AMERICAN pilots? The A-10. The only reasont he Brits lost more Tornados is their armor sucks for low and slow work. They realised they could preform the same mission from a higher altitude and suddenly the loss rates dropped to almost nothing.

The A-10 has not much of a carer left.

I am really sorry for suddenly taking over another thread with another A-10 hijacking.

[BMF]

think you'd best check your info. if you look at a chart of planned life spans for airframes in the air force, the A 10 goes on into infinity. its not being replaced by the jsf or f 22

[Durandal]

think you'd best check your info. if you look at a chart of planned life spans for airframes in the air force, the A 10 goes on into infinity. its not being replaced by the jsf or f 22

No, the F-22 is replacing a NUMBER of aircraft.

This is what you are going to be looking at in 2010 as far as fixed wing combat aircraft:

F-16
F-22
B-52
B-2

F-18 (Super)

(B-1 (possibly though the force is already at bare minimum so probably), A-10, F-15, F-117 and F-14 get the axe)

That is it. All the material you need can be found throughout the DoD websites. A lot of this depends on funding and training and current attrition of aircraft either through combat damage or mechanical problems.

[Seiyuuki]

F-16 is being replace by the F-35.

All I got to say in all this debate is the fact that the B-52 is still going to be around...THAT B-52 IS ONE HELL OF AN AIRCRAFT!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think very few military aircrafts can leave a legacy like that of the B-52, that thing must be approaching 100 years old.

[BMF]

not quite, but close...last B-52H was built in 1962

[Ratamacue]

Seiyuuki, the first flight was some 100 years ago, you know.

[Durandal]

F-16 is being replace by the F-35.

Aren't they building a naval variant of that one also, capable of STOL and VTOL?

I had forgotten all about that...

[Ratamacue]

The F-35A is the Air Force's replacement for the F-16, the F-35B is a STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B's in the USMC, and the F-35C is the carrier variant for the US and Royal Navies.

[Ian H]

Nearly; the Royal Navy is almost certainly buying the F-35B V/STOL version, which is logical since its a natural progression from the Sea Harriers they use now, which are also V/STOL.



Anyway, the OICW. I reckon it has potential to be a very potent weapon once all the computerised parts are fuly developed. Don't forget the version we see being tested is nowhere near the final design, yes it is heavy, but it will be made lighter if it can be. The idea of the XM-25 bugs me a little though, will it be a step back to the M-79 era, with the soldier(s) using it being forced to rely on a pistol, or will the XM-8 be light enough to be carried as well, although if it is, it will surely not have much ammo with it, as the XM-25 magazines will probably take priority in the soldier's kit.

[ST4]

I dont like the OICW. I would stick to the M4-203 rather than using that ridcious OICW.

[Operation Ivy]

Heres a drawing by Jody Harmon with a OICW

http://www.jodyharmon.com/RVStrykerLW.jpg

[devil99]

The models of the design they want it to be like actually aren't that big or bulky. The issue is that right now the components can't be miniturized enough, but probably could be within the next 10 years.

http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/107617/9.jpg

A soldier could poke his eye out with a weapon sight like that.

[ABNINF]

What's up with digging up old threads recently?

[Geezah]

I guess they're using the search function.
It's a lose, lose, situation, they lose if they don't use the search function, they lose if they resurrect(sp) old threads...........

[Ratamacue]

I guess they're using the search function.
It's a lose, lose, situation, they lose if they don't use the search function, they lose if they resurrect(sp) old threads...........It's one thing to resurrect an old thread to share new information, but it's another to resurrect one and make some inane comment.

[Geezah]

It's one thing to resurrect an old thread to share new information, but it's another to resurrect one and make some inane comment.


Very very true, oh wise one..............;)