Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Take a peek
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/us-special-forces-set-carry-laser-guided-smart-bullet-weapon-battle

Can't you get a similar effect with an RPG? They're probably a fraction of the cost. I mean, the fact that you can laser-designate and adjust the range to drop rounds in through windows is cool, but it's not like it can fire around corners.

Yes and no.

A RPG would completely demolish the cover whoever's hiding behind has.

The XM-25 can be loaded with fletchette rounds that can kill whoever's hiding behind the cover, but leave the cover and anyone who's outside of the killzone untouched.

Kanluwen wrote:Yes and no.

A RPG would completely demolish the cover whoever's hiding behind has.

The XM-25 can be loaded with fletchette rounds that can kill whoever's hiding behind the cover, but leave the cover and anyone who's outside of the killzone untouched.

The point of THAT being...? I am honestly struggling to think of an application for this weapon that would be important enough to justify it's no doubt relatively enormous cost.

Cus its fething cool?

...You can't think of the point of that?

That's huge.

It allows cleaner engagements in urban settings, since insurgents/enemy forces hiding in civilian buildings to force engagements where the attackers can be claimed to be "endangering civilians" and allows the avoidance of potential incidents where a Hellfire rocket or an M203 round, or other form of high explosive to clear out a sniper nest/RPG crew/MG team, etc kills dozens of civilians in addition to the fifty insurgents.

You've still got the massive problem of accurate identification though. I'm guessing it won't be that hard for insurgents to (if they don't already) wear exactly the same clothes as civilians; then all you've created is a more expensive way to kill innocent people. Mind you, that is the USA's main export these days....

Or you just aim it at the window that has muzzle flashes?

So they didn't cancel the XM32, they re-packaged it? Yay, military-industrial complex. Yay, Southern economic priorities.

Kanluwen wrote:Or you just aim it at the window that has muzzle flashes?

And they happen to be firing from a room filled with civilians?

I really don't think they're stupid enough to stay in one place while you're launching grenades at them. This is a neat piece of gadgetry but it has more place in Halo/UT than the real world.

dogma wrote:So they didn't cancel the XM32, they re-packaged it?

I think you mean XM29.

You guys want to talk about expensive unnecessary military equipment just take a look at this bad boy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer
$3.3 billion a pop, three time the cost of the ship it's intending to replace. The irony of naming it after CNO Elmo Zumwalt is apparently lost on the Navy.

J.Black wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Or you just aim it at the window that has muzzle flashes?

And they happen to be firing from a room filled with civilians?

I really don't think they're stupid enough to stay in one place while you're launching grenades at them. This is a neat piece of gadgetry but it has more place in Halo/UT than the real world.

You're really stretching there in giving the yahoos that Al Qaeda and insurgent forces are able to get credit.

Kanluwen wrote:It allows cleaner engagements in urban settings

Once the bullets start flying, the idea of a 'clean engagement in an urban setting' enters the realm of relativism.

This weapon is a cool toy, nothing more IMO. I would question it's cost vs. utility.

oooh, me like. How many rounds does that clip hold though? The rounds looked largish.

Kanluwen wrote:

J.Black wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Or you just aim it at the window that has muzzle flashes?

And they happen to be firing from a room filled with civilians?

I really don't think they're stupid enough to stay in one place while you're launching grenades at them. This is a neat piece of gadgetry but it has more place in Halo/UT than the real world.

You're really stretching there in giving the yahoos that Al Qaeda and insurgent forces are able to get credit.

Ask mattyrm about this - from what he has told me Taliban fighters are anything but stupid. Suicidally brave? Yes. Unsophisticated? Yes.

Stupid? No.

I fail to see the argument versus this and an RPG.

An RPG is a fething missile, it shoots ONE MISSILE, and then you have to reload it with another (taking a few bullets to the head while your at it)

Think of this as a M-16, with grenades inside the bullets that are smart.

I think then we're on the same page (don't forget how fast it can fire compared to an RPG)

agnosto wrote:oooh, me like. How many rounds does that clip hold though? The rounds looked largish.

I think it depends on the type of rounds loaded. They've got high explosive rounds, fletchette/fragmentation rounds, and supposedly "sticky" rounds that have RDX on them that allow them to blow clean through walls(the sticky rounds, from what I understand are more complicated than I explained them--but they've used them with the Barretts and other high caliber sniper rifles).

It's also worth noting that it's not intended to be a general infantry weapon, but more of a squad support weapon ala the M203 is now.

Eh.

I think it's uses are more in the realm of declared warfare, against a cleary identifiable foe, and not when in engagements in which civilians are so close as
seems to be the case in the Middle East.

Albatross wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It allows cleaner engagements in urban settings

Once the bullets start flying, the idea of a 'clean engagement in an urban setting' enters the realm of relativism.

This weapon is a cool toy, nothing more IMO. I would question its cost vs. utility.

Then you're not questioning the cost well.

Right now, using a LAW on a barricaded building effectively reduces a combat unit's firepower that they can bring to bear later. Add to it that the other ways(helicopters, airstrikes, tank engagements, etc) all are hideously expensive for basically killing one small unit.

That's not the case here, as they can carry more ammunition and it's reusable--and relatively compact to boot. With the shift to Stryker Brigades, etc--compact multi-use weaponry that's adaptable to situations is becoming more preferable to weapon with clear and limited roles.

This is something that, again, is a bit more adaptable than a standard RPG or LAW.

Albatross wrote:Can't you get a similar effect with an RPG? They're probably a fraction of the cost. I mean, the fact that you can laser-designate and adjust the range to drop rounds in through windows is cool, but it's not like it can fire around corners.

You can get a similar effect with a mortar round too. Same with a tank canons and a nuclear weapon. The difference being that this is an easily portable anti infantry weapon that can carry likely 20+ rounds into combat vs a practical maximum of three with an rpg-7. If you're comparing it to a javelin than you're off base in almost every single way considering the missiles from a jav cost over 100 thousand dollars each. This directly compares to other rifle based grenade launchers, of which this is arguably superior given the inherent range and accuracy of the firing method.

This is nothing like an rpg.

Karon wrote:I fail to see the argument versus this and an RPG.

An RPG is a fething missile, it shoots ONE MISSILE, and then you have to reload it with another (taking a few bullets to the head while your at it)

Think of this as a M-16, with grenades inside the bullets that are smart.

I think then we're on the same page (don't forget how fast it can fire compared to an RPG)

It's not about which has a faster rate of fire - how many grenades do you need to fire into a building to get the desired effect (bad guys inside dead) anyway? My point was an RPG is feth-loads cheaper. Which is true.

And I am aware of how an RPG works, you patronising arse.

It's not about which has a faster rate of fire - how many grenades do you need to fire into a building to get the desired effect (bad guys inside dead) anyway? My point was an RPG is feth-loads cheaper. Which is true.

Who cares, we spent billions of dollars putting lasers onto 747s and the javelin missile launcher with a missile costs more than a really nice bwm. This thing is chump change.

And I am aware of how an RPG works, you patronising arse.

Than stop comparing the two, they are entirely different in both form and function.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Albatross wrote:Can't you get a similar effect with an RPG? They're probably a fraction of the cost. I mean, the fact that you can laser-designate and adjust the range to drop rounds in through windows is cool, but it's not like it can fire around corners.

You can get a similar effect with a mortar round too. Same with a tank canons and a nuclear weapon. The difference being that this is an easily portable anti infantry weapon that can carry likely 20+ rounds into combat vs a practical maximum of three with an rpg-7. If you're comparing it to a javelin than you're off base in almost every single way considering the missiles from a jav cost over 100 thousand dollars each. This directly compares to other rifle based grenade launchers, of which this is arguably superior given the inherent range and accuracy of the firing method.

This is nothing like an rpg.

I never said it was anything like an RPG - I asked whether or not you could get a similar effect with an RPG for a fraction of the cost. Which is reasonable. I wasn't talking about a Javelin, but yes, they are hideously expensive. As will this latest U.S. Army toy be. Don't worry, I'm sure it will win the war for the Coalition - I mean, the Taliban only have AKs, RPGs, and IEDs. They don't stand a chance.

Glad to see I've got all the keyboard generals out, though.

Except it's not meant to be used just against the Taliban...?

They don't do weapons development thinking "How can we fool the Taliban now!"(sidenote: The Taliban is effectively dead. It was a regime, which is gone. The remainder is pretty much Al Qaeda die-hards through and through).

And you can get a similar effect *once* with a RPG or LAW.

never said it was anything like an RPG - I asked whether or not you could get a similar effect with an RPG for a fraction of the cost. Which is reasonable.

It's a reasonable question and the answer is no. An RPG-7 isn't accurate enough and carries heavy variable loads. It's use would ensure a large amount of collateral for minimal and unnecessary effect. Soldiers carried grenade launchers for the last 60 years because rocket launchers are heavy and ill suited for infantry warfare. That didn't change.

I wasn't talking about a Javelin, but yes, they are hideously expensive.

Than were you talking about the at4? Unless we're buying our arms from the russians those are basically the options on the table. The rpg-7 sucks at taking out vehicles and hard fortifications, which is why countries that can afford better weapons don't use it any more.

As will this latest U.S. Army toy be. Don't worry, I'm sure it will win the war for the Coalition - I mean, the Taliban only have AKs, RPGs, and IEDs. They don't stand a chance.

Glibness aside your factually incorrect and you're making an illogical and fallacy ridden argument. I'm not a keyboard general, you're just wrong enough for it to be obvious to anyone with a genius level IQ like mine.

Kanluwen wrote:Except it's not meant to be used just against the Taliban...?
They don't do weapons development thinking "How can we fool the Taliban now!"

Good point, all the stockpiling of weapons for a future war with the USSR you guys did worked out REEEEALLY well and wasn't a waste of money at all.
The US and it's allies will find themselves fighting this sort of war for the forseeable future, I reckon. That's just speculation on my part though...

Kanluwen wrote:
(sidenote: The Taliban is effectively dead. It was a regime, which is gone. The remainder is pretty much Al Qaeda die-hards through and through).

Cool. I guess I'll let you get back to briefing high-level government officials, then.

Good point, all the stockpiling of weapons for a future war with the USSR you guys did worked out REEEEALLY well and wasn't a waste of money at all.
The US and it's allies will find themselves fighting this sort of war for the forseeable future, I reckon. That's just speculation on my part though...

The weapon is perfectly suited to and seemingly designed for counterinsurgency warfare. I don't understand what the point is you're making. Are you just pissed off about the military industrial complex or something? Your argument is constantly shifting.

I think the point he's making is the same as mine. This is just another nice piece of gadgetry for all the soldiers to get a hard on over, and for the military to further justify spending the GDP of Belgium every year on new and more interesting ways to kill people.

J.Black wrote:I think the point he's making is the same as mine. This is just another nice piece of gadgetry for all the soldiers to get a hard on over, and for the military to further justify spending the GDP of Belgium every year on new and more interesting ways to kill people.

Yeah, but we're spending that money regardless. It's not like it's just not going to get spent, I'd rather it get spent on something with results than on laserplanes and fighters that can't fly in the rain. Were that his argument from the start there wouldn't be much of an issue, but his semi constant comparisons to other less expensive and defunct weapons platforms aren't helping his point.

avantgarde wrote: I think you mean XM29.

Yeah. Apparently I put a short on the XM312? Weird mistake.