Fancy as it is, this new weapon is overshadowed by the tragedy of the US army not adopting the XM-8 because... I dunno, its made in Germany and/or something?

*sigh*

I will only tell you that a large number of commenter's here will now jump on your back.  They will tell you, whether it's true or no, that the M-8 was a woefully substandard weapon, that tended to melt when fired often.  That it failed it's troops trials, with the Rangers IIRC, for that very reason and so it was RIGHTLY rejected.  Is it true, I don't know, but that is what you will now hear...

 

And of course it was going to be built in the US, in Georgia I believe.

The XM-25 is bigger and heavier than an M-16, and looks to be a re-engineered version of the grenade launcher portion of the OICW.  The OICW concept was not a rifle with an attached grenade launcher, but a grenade launcher with an attached rifle.  It was rejected because of weight (around 18 pounds loaded) and overall length that made it less acceptable for combat in the built up areas where most of the action was in Iraq.

 

They might look at attaching one of the PDW concepts to XM-25, but it will probably push the weight over 16 pounds.

The XM-25 will be sole weapon of a grenadier or equivalent - probably one per squad or thereabouts.

 

It'll be a replacement for the 203 in that position in some units I gather, at least at first, and will probably be very useful to people operating in built up areas (counter sniper work with one of those puppies will be interesting) and VCP's - an incoming truck bomb will stop if hit in the engine block or crew cabin with a 25mm round I suspect..

Someone did ask what would happen if someone popped up inside the minimum arming distance of the grenade - I suspect they'd just shoot the bad guy in the chest anyway - the grenade won't detonate but a 25 mm cannon shell in the chest travelling at several hundred meters a second should prove discouraging.

 

Ian

 

If this weapon enters service is it going to be the primary weapon of a soldier?  Combined with a 5.56 weapon like the M203?  Or will a soldier carry the XM-25 in addition to his M-16?

Some of the reasons they (US Army's research eggheads) spent so much time and money one the project:

-The Mk19 40mm MGL and M2 50-cal HMG are just that: heavy. Too heavy for infantry unless you have vehicles to carry them and their heavy ammunition loads. Tests and demonstrations have shown a two-man team can fairly easily manhandle (minus 50+ pounds of personal gear) either the M307 or M312 and its ground mount tripod, in addition to a couple cases of ammo for either. Try getting two people to lug an M2 or a Mk 19, tripod, and 2 boxes any measurable distance.

 

-The 25mm grenade design that was settled on offered some preferrable benefits over the 40mm.

 

Its higher velocity gave it a flatter trajectory, quicker time to target, and made it less susceptible to crosswinds than the Mk19's grenades,

and the exploding rounds had much less chance of over-penetrating or ricocheting in a bad direction when compared to 50-cal ammo,

plusd, the flatter flight of 25mm grenades makes for easier aiming at doorways, windows, and other hidey-holes at various elevations above or below from where you're firing.

 

Its ammo boxes would've allowed more rounds for the same weight than Mk19 ammo, but I think it fell pretty close in comparison to a box of 50-cal ammo, maybe slightly heavier (these aren't 25x137mm Bushmaster cannon-class shells, after all).

 

The idea of the fire control computer to combine data from the laser range finder and program the individual grenades to detonate accordingly at the correct distance downrange, justified the idea of having a reduced rate of fire,

which in turn allowed the weapon to be lighter yet as it didn't need as much sheer weight to handle recoil.

And in the case of the lower rate of fire (app 230-260 rpm in either caliber),

one of the ideas behind that was the aimed-beats-auto argument: what good is sending twice as many rounds downrange if you're only using them as area effect?

The lower rate for the M307/312 means gunners could more accurately keep the gun, and the rounds, on the intended target.

So in effect, the idea was to go from a rapid fire area weapon to a lower rate of fire precision weapon, ideally (at least in theory) achieving equal or better on-target results.

 

And there's still the issue of ammo weight.

Yeah, for any of the guns, you still need a vehicle to carry any really useful amount of ammo to sustain an operation,

but at least the lighter M307/312 could actually be moved to another fighting position a lot easier, with its ammo, than either of the other two.

 

Advances in explosives designs and powder chemistry were anticipated to give as lethal an explosion, and a better fragmentation pattern, than the 40mm grenades that were designed in the 1960s-1980s timeframe.

 

 

These have just been my observations on it,

and I'm sure others can chime in with additional pluses and minuses (more than welcomed to).

 

The actual replacement that the US Army is pursuing to replace the M203 series is the new M320 grenade launcher.

 

US Army PEO Soldier pdf on the M320: link

It is a grenade launcher, not a cannon.  The armor piercing round will be a shaped charge about 2cm in diameter, but technological improvements seem to give it nearly the same penetration as the existing 40mm dual purpose round.  In a front on shot you would have to penetrate the radiator, which will probably do a good impression of slat armor provided you are not going very far afterward.  In a side shot the car body will act as spaced armor and detonate the grenade around a foot from the engine block and the jet will probably dissipate too much to be effective.

 

Go for the windshield with a short delay to let it pass though before detonation.

Man I'm no expert in this field but it will be annoying if after 16 yrs in development the program is finally canceled, while 6 other militaries around the globe in fact deploy an effective derivative.  Crazy..

 

And another thing.. how many years does it take to develop an initial block, Precision guided 120mm mortar round??  15?

 

Just a question though, since I'm not in the army or not a gun buff.. but after a couple minutes of wiki search, couldn't in the short term they just develop a cheap laser guided 40x46 and 40x51(ER) for existing 40mm hand-held launchers such as the M203 and MGL?

 

Sure, a couple high-velocity fancy $25,000 25mm systems per platoon maybe a potent addition to the infantry fires, but in the meantime (prior to 6 yrs, c'mon) can't a cheap round be delivered en masse, to every existing 40mm launcher already deployed in the field?

 

Every squad could over-night be able to engage with precision guidance out to 800m instead of spraying and praying with .50 cal, etc.

 

Further, my analysis would support feasibility and unprecedented fires at a grunt platoon level, of a laser guided shoulder launched 2.75" rocket?  Maybe a 60mm Recoilless rifle round too?  The objective therefor should be for infantry units at the squad level to be able to affordably, effectively and decisively engage combatants at beyond 600m with MINIMAL rounds and without relying on Air support or heavy artillery to do so! 

   I hear it was blocked in Congress due to economic issues. 

  All I know about tests is it did exceptionally well in extreme dust environments and something about good performance in Iraq. I understand if it was abandoned due to melting down, but I'm not sure if I believe it... It melted? OK, it is a plastic weapon, but that sounds like a vicious rumor. Maybe I'm being very biased, but its hard for me to imagine HK botching their job THAT badly. They're a good company.

Of course, I'm taking your comment heavily into account... I'm not sure if it should have been adopted any longer.

 

 

Does anyone have a detailed report on what came back from live test?

Though by economic issues that's really not all too much, so it might have had to be nationalist as well. I dunno.

 

I just wanted to say thanks for enlightening me and for any future info as well.

In response to the notion of packing actual guidance and control technologies into 40mm munitions:

There's a system under development called EAPS  ,which is actually a 50mm system utilizing a hybrid Bushmaster cannon composed of parts of the 35/50mm convertible Bushmaster III gun with components of the Bushmaster IV gun that's chambered to fire the comparably large 40mm Bofors L70 ammo, as the actual EAPS munition is a fairly longer system than other 50mm rounds.

{  ht*p://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007gun_missile/GMTuePM2/BrislinPresentation.pdf   }

But it proves that we're well on the way to getting course correctable technologies into ever-decreasing diameters.

 

There's a couple of links here   and   here

,showing that there are developments in the works to get control mechanisms even down to 40mm caliber class.

{   ht*p://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionI/08_Horwath_LCCCT.pdf   }

{   ht*p://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionI/09_BarnychApplication_of_LCCC_Tech.pdf   }

 

As for making the round in question (you suggest 40mm) a laser guided system, well, there's munition that DARPA has put industry up to developing called ODAM, for Optically Designated Attack Munition, in effect a guided 60mm mortar shell.

I've got tons on it:

DARPA's solicitation for ODAM is here

{   ht*p://www.darpa.gov/sto/solicitations/ODAM/proposers.htm   }

 

Some Q&A from the defense industry, to DARPA, concerning just what then can aim for in ODAM is here

{   ht*p://www.darpa.mil/sto/solicitations/ODAM/faq.htm   }

 

{   ht*p://www.darpa.gov/sto/smallunitops/odam.html   }

 

Here's a BAE press release in pdf   format saying they're in (will submit their concept for it).

{   ht*p://www.na.baesystems.com/newsReleases/030-DEVELOP_60MM_MORTAR_GUIDANCE_SYSTEMS.pdf   }

 

Here's another BAE pdf   showing what they've been busy doing with smallform laser seeker technologies.

{   ht*p://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007gun_missile/GMWedPM2/FranciscovichPresentation.pdf   }

 

It all seems pretty impressive,

but keep in mind that there have been other command guided small munitions under development before ODAM and EAPS.

From 2001, here's    some work being done around the 40mm CTAI gun to give it a useful anti-air weapon.

{   ht*p://www.dtic.mi