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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11876041

it uses explosive rounds!

Maybe we'll finally actually get something for all the money we spent on the OICW.

Within six weeks of it being issued to the troops I guarantee a picture will turn up with one with a purity seal on it.

That gun offically condones shooting at british troops, look at the weapon the siolders using in the ranging diagram

The first time I saw the AA-12 explosive grenade round I thought it was the first step to our glorious Bolter.

FM Ninja 048 wrote:That gun offically condones shooting at british troops, look at the weapon the siolders using in the ranging diagram

It looks like a QBZ-95 with an extended barrel.

So no, not shooting at British troops Chinese troops!

The US Army has just revealed the XM-25 "Smart Gun" which has taken several years to develop and can be "programmed to detonate over a target."

Apparently, with just a few more years of development they may even be able to get it working so that it detonates over a correct target..................

Its a high tech grenade launcher. Step in the right direction, but Bolters penetrate armor and THEN explode. These derive killing power from a release of kinetic force in the direction of the target. Subtle but substantial difference.


I'd love to take one out in the desert and shoot cacti and old cars with it for sure!

Yeah bolters fire a solid fuel rocket propeled mass reactive round so it fires out the bolter a few inch's useing a propellent then ignites the rocket fuel to get to the target then as it penertrates the target it senses the mass of the target around it and explodes...

this just fires out of the xm25 like a standerd 40mm grenade then useing a radio signal to the round from the targeting scope it explodes like a frag/shrapnel round.

and interestingly is against the geneva convention as it fires a non grenade based direct fragmenting round .

CURNOW wrote:

and interestingly is against the geneva convention as it fires a non grenade based direct fragmenting round .

You've inspired me to read up on the GC.

wouldnt be the first time the U.S has willingly breached it ..why do you think the issued millitary shotguns are classed as door entry systems ..same as ww2 pacific only legaly alowed to use them to clear foliage {and if there happened to be a jap in the way then oops}

The GC /snerk

Kanluwen wrote:

FM Ninja 048 wrote:That gun offically condones shooting at british troops, look at the weapon the siolders using in the ranging diagram

It looks like a QBZ-95 with an extended barrel.

So no, not shooting at British troops Chinese troops!

Actually it is the L85A2, but with an exaggerated barrel take a closer look.






Also I think the money for this could have been better spent on a replacement for the M4, rather than a new grenade launcher that won't get used because you have to get Command Authorization to fire it.

It shoots through schools!

Of course the money could have been more effeciently spent, but the US military LOVES high tech toys.

Then again, we are spending millions to combat "terrorist" plots that cost under 5 grand. Do the math, we're screwed.

agroszkiewicz wrote:Of course the money could have been more effeciently spent, but the US military LOVES high tech toys.

Then again, we are spending millions to combat "terrorist" plots that cost under 5 grand. Do the math, we're screwed.

So says the guy who's safe typing in front of a computer.

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:Of course the money could have been more effeciently spent, but the US military LOVES high tech toys.

Then again, we are spending millions to combat "terrorist" plots that cost under 5 grand. Do the math, we're screwed.

So says the guy who's safe typing in front of a computer.

I believe that there were at least a handful of computers in the World Trade Centre....


Just saying.

BrotherStynier wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

FM Ninja 048 wrote:That gun offically condones shooting at british troops, look at the weapon the siolders using in the ranging diagram

It looks like a QBZ-95 with an extended barrel.

So no, not shooting at British troops Chinese troops!

Actually it is the L85A2, but with an exaggerated barrel take a closer look.






Also I think the money for this could have been better spent on a replacement for the M4, rather than a new grenade launcher that won't get used because you have to get Command Authorization to fire it.

It's not an L85A2, where the scope is situated is wrong and there's something ahead of it in the silhouette.

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:Of course the money could have been more effeciently spent, but the US military LOVES high tech toys.

Then again, we are spending millions to combat "terrorist" plots that cost under 5 grand. Do the math, we're screwed.

So says the guy who's safe typing in front of a computer.

Eh? I'm confused by how me typing on a computer has anythign to do with the military spending of the country? I'd love to turn most of the middle east into a glass sandbox, but for some reason we'd rather build tactical gadgets.


Let me be 100% clear...I have NOTHING but the utmost respect for our soldiers that put their asses on the line. My problem is with policy makers and politicians that spend the blood of my generation in wars all over the globe. Hope that clarifys things a bit.

FM Ninja 048 wrote:That gun offically condones shooting at british troops, look at the weapon the siolders using in the ranging diagram

LOL. Good spot. That gun looks Orrsom....

Kanluwen wrote:

BrotherStynier wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

FM Ninja 048 wrote:That gun offically condones shooting at british troops, look at the weapon the siolders using in the ranging diagram

It looks like a QBZ-95 with an extended barrel.

So no, not shooting at British troops Chinese troops!

Actually it is the L85A2, but with an exaggerated barrel take a closer look.






Also I think the money for this could have been better spent on a replacement for the M4, rather than a new grenade launcher that won't get used because you have to get Command Authorization to fire it.

It's not an L85A2, where the scope is situated is wrong and there's something ahead of it in the silhouette.

Its an Artists redetion, everything else on the silhouette looks like an L85 except that the Iron sights/folding carry handle are forward of the SUSAT sights rather than under them.

And that the trigger has a guard more like the QBZ-95, etc etc

Although, looking at it it does look more and more like the Type-88 with an extended barrel.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:Of course the money could have been more effeciently spent, but the US military LOVES high tech toys.

Then again, we are spending millions to combat "terrorist" plots that cost under 5 grand. Do the math, we're screwed.

So says the guy who's safe typing in front of a computer.

I'd love to turn most of the middle east into a glass sandbox, but for some reason we'd rather build tactical gadgets.

Uh, yeah we'd "rather build tactical gadgets" instead of turning a bloody section of the Earth into a radioactive parking lot.
Crazy, right?
You know that the way military spending works isn't just to make a piece that will only be effective in one theater of war.

The XM-25 will be a piece that, even following the campaign in Afghanistan, will be useful. It has several different applications, most of which tend towards making urban warfare a bit safer for the soldiers utilizing the equipment. The ability to set a launcher for an airburst on a group of people dug in within a room or hardened facility is something that could make all the difference between a soldier's death and him surviving.

Kanluwen wrote:And that the trigger has a guard more like the QBZ-95, etc etc

Although, looking at it it does look more and more like the Type-88 with an extended barrel.

I still think its the L85, but I digress

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:Of course the money could have been more effeciently spent, but the US military LOVES high tech toys.

Then again, we are spending millions to combat "terrorist" plots that cost under 5 grand. Do the math, we're screwed.

So says the guy who's safe typing in front of a computer.

I'd love to turn most of the middle east into a glass sandbox, but for some reason we'd rather build tactical gadgets.

Uh, yeah we'd "rather build tactical gadgets" instead of turning a bloody section of the Earth into a radioactive parking lot.
Crazy, right?
You know that the way military spending works isn't just to make a piece that will only be effective in one theater of war.

The XM-25 will be a piece that, even following the campaign in Afghanistan, will be useful. It has several different applications, most of which tend towards making urban warfare a bit safer for the soldiers utilizing the equipment. The ability to set a launcher for an airburst on a group of people dug in within a room or hardened facility is something that could make all the difference between a soldier's death and him surviving.

I think that a new Assault Rifle and new Body Armor would be a more practical solution to improving the average Troopers survival. This fancy new toy, which you do have to get Command's permission to use, would be better to have been put on the back burner for a bit before coming out.

I mean if the USMC is thinking about replacing some of its weapons, the Army should be too.

Looks like, for all practical purposes, it's a shoulder fired mortar with laser rangefinding and programmable ammo. I like it!

As for replacing the M4, with what?

Stormrider wrote:Looks like, for all practical purposes, it's a shoulder fired mortar with laser rangefinding and programmable ammo. I like it!

As for replacing the M4, with what?

Any of the guns that were tested after the failure of the original OICW platform. The XM8 is nice, but pretty much all of them were shown to be superior to the M4 in most ways. I think they started replacing it with the SCAR, but then the lovely internals of the military industrial complex kicked in and despite testing far better then the M4 and M16 (though worse then the XM8 by a significant margin) it still got soft cancelled for "intangible reasons".

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Looks like, for all practical purposes, it's a shoulder fired mortar with laser rangefinding and programmable ammo. I like it!

As for replacing the M4, with what?

Any of the guns that were tested after the failure of the original OICW platform. The XM8 is nice, but pretty much all of them were shown to be superior to the M4 in most ways. I think they started replacing it with the SCAR, but then the lovely internals of the military industrial complex kicked in and despite testing far better then the M4 and M16 (though worse then the XM8 by a significant margin) it still got soft cancelled for "intangible reasons".

Which I can kind of understand as the M4/M16 platform has been in service for almost 60 years and everyone in combat would eventually have to be re-trained to use the SCAR. I like the SCAR and M4 platforms, as well as the ACR. I can see all three being used in the future (pending re-acceptance of course). The XM8's modual capabilities are really great for tactical flexibility, but it's poor trials doomed it. Can't have a gun melt in your hands.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:Of course the money could have been more effeciently spent, but the US military LOVES high tech toys.

Then again, we are spending millions to combat "terrorist" plots that cost under 5 grand. Do the math, we're screwed.

So says the guy who's safe typing in front of a computer.

I believe that there were at least a handful of computers in the World Trade Centre....


Just saying.

Well played.

Particularly given that the target "man" has previously advocated cutting our military budget to 10% of its current total.

Stormrider wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Looks like, for all practical purposes, it's a shoulder fired mortar with laser rangefinding and programmable ammo. I like it!

As for replacing the M4, with what?

Any of the guns that were tested after the failure of the original OICW platform. The XM8 is nice, but pretty much all of them were shown to be superior to the M4 in most ways. I think they started replacing it with the SCAR, but then the lovely internals of the military industrial complex kicked in and despite testing far better then the M4 and M16 (though worse then the XM8 by a significant margin) it still got soft cancelled for "intangible reasons".

Which I can kind of understand as the M4/M16 platform has been in service for almost 60 years and everyone in combat would eventually have to be re-trained to use the SCAR. I like the SCAR and M4 platforms, as well as the ACR. I can see all three being used in the future (pending re-acceptance of course). The XM8's modual capabilities are really great for tactical flexibility, but it's poor trials doomed it. Can't have a gun melt in your hands.

The XM8 Platform didn't melt in people's hands. My close friends training Sergeant for AIT (Small Arms Repair) was one of the Soldiers that tested the weapons for the program and believed the XM8 was the superior weapons platform suffering the least issues.

As for the SCAR only the 75th Rangers are being re-equipt with it, and from what I hear the Marines are considering it. On another not the Marines are looking into adopting a variant of the HK-416 intended to work similarly to the RPK.

Stormrider wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Looks like, for all practical purposes, it's a shoulder fired mortar with laser rangefinding and programmable ammo. I like it!

As for replacing the M4, with what?

Any of the guns that were tested after the failure of the original OICW platform. The XM8 is nice, but pretty much all of them were shown to be superior to the M4 in most ways. I think they started replacing it with the SCAR, but then the lovely internals of the military industrial complex kicked in and despite testing far better then the M4 and M16 (though worse then the XM8 by a significant margin) it still got soft cancelled for "intangible reasons".

Which I can kind of understand as the M4/M16 platform has been in service for almost 60 years and everyone in combat would eventually have to be re-trained to use the SCAR. I like the SCAR and M4 platforms, as well as the ACR. I can see all three being used in the future (pending re-acceptance of course). The XM8's modual capabilities are really great for tactical flexibility, but it's poor trials doomed it. Can't have a gun melt in your hands.

The XM8 never melted in anyones hands, it suffered the fewest failures in every single test in the post OICW replacement trials. In virtually every test it was placed against direct competitors like the M16 and the SCAR, in the first test (the one that caused them to then have to retest several more times to validate) it suffered a fourth the failures the M platform weapon did while being lighter, in the rest it was only suffering half the failures of the next best. I think the US military just didn't want to batch order a German gun.

When I saw the original picture I thought the target man's weapon was the LMG version of the L85.

As for the US military liking high-tech gadgets, that is fine as long as they work well.

I can't help thinking that a simpler solution to the problem of enemy hiding is to use tactics.

Kilkrazy wrote:When I saw the original picture I thought the target man's weapon was the LMG version of the L85.

As for the US military liking high-tech gadgets, that is fine as long as they work well.

I can't help thinking that a simpler solution to the problem of enemy hiding is to use tactics.

This is a result of using tactics. It's a lot easier to put a single round through a wall then to expose your troops to enemy fire as they attempt to flank the position.

$12,500 is a small price to pay for the added protection that this weapon brings to our troops.