NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

XM-25 Is Readied For Prime Time

April 10, 2009: After over a decade of development, the revolutionary, and very high-tech, XM-25 grenade launcher is undergoing final tests, prior to mass production, and distribution to the troops. It was four years ago that six XM-25s were delivered to the U.S. Army for troop testing. While the troops have been very enthusiastic about the new weapon, there were a lot of suggestions, mostly about minor items. So the army kept tweaking and refining the weapon.

The XM-25 was originally one of two weapons (the other being a 5.56mm rifle) incorporated in the 18 pound XM-29 OICW. The OICW was originally developed as a replacement for the 40mm grenade launcher, with the intention of giving the grenadier some rifle firepower as well. Didn't work out as intended.

The 40mm rounds weigh 19 ounces each, the original 20mm OICW round weighed half that. This was one of the several major problems with the OICW. It was too heavy and ungainly, and the 20mm "smart shell" it fired did not appear capable of effectively putting enemy troops out of action, especially compared to the 40mm shell it was replacing. So, in August, 2003, it was decided to take the 5.56mm portion of the OICW and develop it as a separate weapon (the XM-8) and develop the grenade launcher part that fired the "smart shell" as the XM-25. But the XM-25 would use a 25mm shell, which would generate 50 percent more fragments (and heavier ones at that) than the 20mm shell of the OICW.

The 20mm and 25mm "smart shells" both use a computer controlled fuze. The XM-25 operator can choose one of four different firing modes via a selector switch on the weapon. The four modes include "Bursting" (airburst). For this to work, the soldier first finds the target via the weapons sighting system. The sight includes a laser range finder and the ability to select and adjust the range shown in the sight picture. For an air burst, the soldier aims at an enemy position and fires a round. The shell is optimized to spray incapacitating (wounding or killing) fragments in a roughly six meter (19 foot) radius from the exploding round. Thus if enemy troops are seen moving near trees or buildings at a long distance (over 500 meters), the weapon has a good chance of getting them with one shot. M-16s are not very accurate at that range, and the enemy troops will dive for cover as soon as M-16 bullets hit around them. With smart shells, you get one (or a few) accurate shots and the element of surprise.

The other modes are "PD" (point detonation, where the round explodes on contact), PDD (point detonation delay, where the round detonates immediately after it has gone through a door, window or thin wall) and "Window", which is used for firing at enemy troops in a trench, behind a stone wall or inside a room. The round detonates just beyond the aiming point. For buildings, this would be a window or door frame, cave entrance or the corner of a building (to get enemy troops thought to be around the corner.)

The XM25 is still a heavy weapon, with the final version coming in at 12 pounds. The 25mm shells weigh over half a pound each. On the plus side, there is already a 25mm armor piercing round (using a shaped charge capable of penetrating over 50mm of armor) available. This makes the M-25 capable of knocking out light armored vehicles.

The U.S. Army has fired over 30 million 25mm shells from the cannon on its M-2 Bradley armored vehicles and was satisfied with the lethality of that shell against infantry. Then there are the new versions of  25mm round, like  fuel-air explosive (or "thermobaric"). Such a shell would cause greater blast effect in an enclosed space, and actually suck most of the oxygen out of a cave or closed room long enough to make surviving troops at least a bit groggy. This gives the attacking troops an opportunity to rush in and kill the enemy, or take prisoners. In combat, every little advantage helps.

The XM-25 will probably show up in Afghanistan first. Most of the combat there is out in the country, and the enemy like to use their PRGs (rocket propelled grenades) as artillery. An experienced RPG user can hit a stationary target at 500 meters, and come fairly close at a kilometer. The XM-25 provides similar capabilities, and with every infantry squad (of 10-11 troops) having one, the enemy will soon know about it. That's because hiding behind rocks, trees, walls or in caves will no longer protect you. The 25mm smart shells cost $25 each.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article ATTRITION: Iraq Is Still A Rough Neighborhood


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

sjdoc    The RPG-7 in friendly hands   4/10/2009 9:46:29 AM
--
Iraqi and Aghan troops have considerable experience with Russian-type RPGs.  If the insurgents can and do use these RPGs as impromptu artillery, would it be worthwhile for the "friendlies" to keep such weapons in inventory and develop a formal tactical doctrine to use them? 
 
There's "sunk capital" in their experience, and these weapons are far cheaper than the XM-25 system (which neither the Iraqi nor the Afhani governments can afford).
--
 
Quote    Reply

Ezekiel    weapon to fight heavy assymetic enemy   4/10/2009 6:19:15 PM
This is the type of weapons that infantry units will need to employ when fighting bulky guerilla armies like Hizbullah and Al Qaida, who use the rpg as a standard tactic. This weapon will give the armies the conventional firepower needed in these type of engagements, where the rpg was used like artillery.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Okay, I need an expert.    4/11/2009 4:33:51 PM
That would be somebody like AussieGunnerAgain or ArtyEngineer, but wouldn't the rounds for the Bradley's Bushmaster CANNON




be different from the XM-25 GRENADE LAUNCHER?
 
 

Just asking.
 
Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    I'm not the expert, but:   4/11/2009 6:57:05 PM
I found this on a blog:
 
"http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002299.html"
 
FWIW: The projectiles used in the XM25?s ammo are not those of the 25×137mm cartridges used in the M2 Bradley?s Bushmaster cannon. However, the XM25 ammo is supposed to share warheads with the higher velocity ammunition used in the XM307 ACSW and XM109 Payload Rifle. The only thing being shared with the cannon rounds is certain fuse components.

This would mean that the cartridge/casing with the propellant would be different, and that some components in the bullet/warhead would be similar to bullets/warheads in the Bradley.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

RHylton       4/11/2009 10:15:45 PM
the comparison of the 25mm Bushmaster round and the Xm-25, are not comparing the actual projectile, my impression is that it is comparing the relative effectiveness of a explosive round with a caliber of 25mm, and that if a 25mm round from a bushmaster has enough lethality to do the job, a 25mm grenade launcher round will be just as effective, if not more so, due to the advanced design of the fuzing.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       4/12/2009 11:26:26 AM
Some of this kind of goes back to those past discussions of various WW2 75-76mm tank guns: the higher-velocity guns having thicker shell walls to withstand greater launch stresses, thus having a lower HE filler than lower velocity guns.
 
Not sure, by weight, of the filler in either M242 (Chain Gun) ammunition or 25mm "smart" grenades,
but being of a lower-velocity design, the grenades theoretically could be thinner-walled and thus carry a tad more filler.
 
But then again, by Herald's pics, the 25mm cannon ammo is a physically longer shell, so it may at least have an equivalent internal volume for filler (but again, it would have thicker walls, and a good portion of the nose is its fuze mechanism, a 1990s design at best, where the new smart grenade is mostly a decade better in technological sophistication (smaller electronic circuitry and a physically smaller fuze).
 
No ideas if there are plans to incorporate such smart fuze tech in a new high velocity 25mm round for the Chain Gun family (25x137mm NATO), especially as it seems 30mm may be becoming the new preferred caliber of choice (there already being a few potent 30mm airburst-capable rounds in service or in near-production development)...
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/13/2009 11:37:23 AM
I dunno about the 25 Grenade Launcher, but it seems to be reliable at first sight and I've heard lots of good about it and seen a few clips where it hit well and did good damage.
The XM series is designed to be reliable, adaptable and efficient, in that order. The design philosophy accentuates minimal firing errors, modifications and thirdly, efficiency.
So other guns might be more powerful or perfectly fitted for the situation but in most situations I'd go with an XM because I can rely on it to perform.
 
Quote    Reply

OldFatGuy       4/13/2009 8:31:28 PM
XM-25?  What a total WASTE OF MONEY.  For a hundred dollars, anyplace other than America, the armed forces could have the most dependable weapon system in the world, the RPG-7.  It IS the weapon our troops are most concerned with other than the AK-47.  If the XM-25 is going to be used in Afghanistan against Taliban using RPG's then fight back with RPG's!  It's BILLIONS of dollars cheaper, ammo can be found in any third world country, it effective, and is what our troops are trying to cope with.  Buy them, use them by the thousands against the Taliban, and for ONCE understand that American technology is not always the best, even if it costs the most. 
Recently on Dan Rather's HD Network news show a reporter was in a valley in Afghanistan and our troops were being harassed by the occassional RPG.  For a few tens of thousands of dollars they could be shooting RPGs at the Taliban by the thousands.  I don't think they'd be having a lot more trouble with them if they did!
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/14/2009 4:55:05 AM
The XM-25 is superior to the RPG-7. We won't always be fighting Afghans.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    the epitome of old tech blending with new...   4/15/2009 2:57:27 AM
....will be two to three decades from now when someone builds one of those hunter/seeker course correcting screw-in nose fuzes that fits the RPG warheads.
 
That weapon will be like the Lee Enfield rifle: it lasts forever because it works, it's cheap, and easily maintained.
 
Those GD R&D folks got it down to 50mm class test projectiles (even a completed 84mm SMAW-type rocket) some 5+ years ago (it's from 2004).
Two or three decades out, the RPG warhead will still be effective (and even further refined in its lethality).
And these fuzes should be commonplace by then, performing point-and-click, fire-and-forget engagements like a lot of Hollywood and SciFi movies like to show off today...
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/15/2009 5:27:00 AM
The reporters said the Taliban fighters were firing RPGs as harassment fire because at the range they were firing the RPG cannot hit the broad side of a barn, and we would not do much better firing the same thing back.
 
The question is: Can the XM-25 reliably put its rounds within 1m of it's target at that range? (I think the wound radius is 2m)
If the answer is "yes" then the XM-25 is superior to the RPG for those types of engagement.  If not, then I would say neither of them is very useful for that kind of engagement, but give the edge to the RPG.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy