A couple of interesting developments in the infantry weapons field.
The first is the laser guided bullet that Sandia Labs have been working on.The .50-caliber bullet, which behaves more like a miniature guided missile, doesn’t have a spiral rotation, but instead twists and turns to guide itself toward a laser-directed point and is capable of making up to 30 corrections in the air — it could be a perfect fit for military machine guns, scientists said.
From the Sandia press release;
Sandia researchers Red Jones and Brian Kast and their colleagues have invented a dart-like, self-guided bullet for small-caliber, smooth-bore firearms that could hit laser-designated targets at distances of more than a mile (about 2,000 meters).
“We have a very promising technology to guide small projectiles that could be fully developed inexpensively and rapidly,” Jones said.
Sandia is seeking a private company partner to complete testing of the prototype and bring a guided bullet to the marketplace.
Researchers have had initial success testing the design in computer simulations and in field tests of prototypes, built from commercially available parts, Jones said.
While engineering issues remain, “we’re confident in our science base and we’re confident the engineering-technology base is there to solve the problems,” he said.
Sandia’s design for the four-inch-long bullet includes an optical sensor in the nose to detect a laser beam on a target. The sensor sends information to guidance and control electronics that use an algorithm in an eight-bit central processing unit to command electromagnetic actuators. These actuators steer tiny fins that guide the bullet to the target.
Most bullets shot from rifles, which have grooves, or rifling, that cause them to spin so they fly straight, like a long football pass. To enable a bullet to turn in flight toward a target and to simplify the design, the spin had to go, Jones said.
The bullet flies straight due to its aerodynamically stable design, which consists of a center of gravity that sits forward in the projectile and tiny fins that enable it to fly without spin, just as a dart does, he said.
Sandia's self-guided bullet
Computer aerodynamic modeling shows the design would result in dramatic improvements in accuracy, Jones said. Computer simulations showed an unguided bullet under real-world conditions could miss a target more than a half mile away (1,000 meters away) by 9.8 yards (9 meters), but a guided bullet would get within 8 inches (0.2 meters), according to the patent.
Plastic sabots provide a gas seal in the cartridge and protect the delicate fins until they drop off after the bullet emerges from the firearm’s barrel.
The prototype does not require a device found in guided missiles called an inertial measuring unit, which would have added substantially to its cost. Instead, the researchers found that the bullet’s relatively small size when compared to guided missiles “is helping us all around. It’s kind of a fortuitous thing that none of us saw when we started,” Jones said.
As the bullet flies through the air, it pitches and yaws at a set rate based on its mass and size. In larger guided missiles, the rate of flight-path corrections is relatively slow, so each correction needs to be very precise because fewer corrections are possible during flight. But “the natural body frequency of this bullet is about 30 hertz, so we can make corrections 30 times per second. That means we can overcorrect, so we don’t have to be as precise each time,” Jones said.
Testing has shown the electromagnetic actuator performs well and the bullet can reach speeds of 2,400 feet per second, or Mach 2.1, using commercially available gunpowder. The researchers are confident it could reach standard military speeds using customized gunpowder.
And a nighttime field test, in which a tiny light-emitting diode, or LED, was attached to the bullet showed the battery and electronics can survive flight, Jones said.
Sandia's self-guided bullet path
Researchers also filmed high-speed video of the bullet radically pitching as it exited the barrel. The bullet pitches less as it flies down range, a phenomenon known to long-range firearms experts as “going to sleep.” Because the bullet’s motions settle the longer it is in flight, accuracy improves at longer ranges, Jones said.
“Nobody had ever seen that, but we’ve got high-speed video photography that shows that it’s true,” he said.
Potential customers for the bullet include the military, law enforcement and recreational shooters.
In addition to Jones and Kast, Sandia researchers who helped develop the technology are: engineer Brandon R. Rohrer, aerodynamics expert Marc W. Kniskern, mechanical designer Scott E. Rose, firearms expert James W. Woods and Ronald W. Greene, a guidance, control and simulation engineer.
Sandia's self-guided bullet (detail)
Seems like a niche capability and not something we would seem to be in desperate need of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmAzAmYv364
The second interesting development is not actually new but something that, rather sensibly, has been field tested in Afghanistan, the XM25, a collaboration between HK and ATK.
This is an evolution of older weapons but the US has stuck with the concept of a 25mm weapon used for attacking dismounted targets in a defilade position and other targets.
The XM25, Counter Defilade Target Engagement (CDTE) System will provide the infantry Soldier with leap-ahead overmatch capability and range with a family of 25mm programmable air burst munitions
It does look rather sci-fi but the feedback returning from Afghanistan has apparently been incredibly good.
XM25 Individual Semi-Automatic Airburst System (ISAAS) in Afghanistan. The XM25 Individual Semi-Automatic Airburst System (ISAAS) enables the small unit and individual Soldier to engage defilade targets by providing a 25mm air bursting capability that can be used in all operational environments.
The concept of precision fusing to detonate the warhead at a set distance from the firing point is not new, the 40mm CTA is supposedly having this as an optional extra but squeezing it down to 25mm is very impressive.
25mm High Explosive Air Bursting Round
A full range of ammunition natures is available and more being developed including air bursting, door breaching and less than lethal.
Because it is still a development weapon the ammunition is expensively hand made, at $700 per shot this is not something to be spraying but that is the point, one does not need more than one or two. From a recent economist article;
A handful of XM25s are now being tested in Afghanistan by the Americans. So far, they have been used on more than 200 occasions. Most of these fights ended quickly, and in America’s favour, according to Lieutenant-Colonel Shawn Lucas, who is in charge of the weapon’s field-testing programme.
If the trials are successful and the system goes into mass production the target price per round is $25. These trials have been so successful to date that an additional 36 weapons have been ordered.
Some videos;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-7L0Frj6vQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh4uy5A-lI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOwn1hkqh_8
This looks very interesting but does the loss of a standard infantry rifle in a section, for example, cause too much of a loss of flexibility?
Ever since the bow and arrow, combat has been line-of-sight. Only mortars, aircrat and heavy artillery could destroy defiladed/hidden enemies.
With the XM-25, there simply is no hiding behind walls, sandbags, vehicles, whatever.
At all.
Putting that sort of (accurate!) capability in the hands of infantry is a game-changer; no need to call in ‘danger close’ artillery or air strikes with the unavoidable collateral damage.
The XM-25 is definately worth giving up a few rifles.
On the Sandia guided round, it would be a trememdous asset to any vehicle mounted RWS .50cal.
I can imagine the guided bullet having potential in a sniper application, but I think as a regular machine gun round might be over-selling it a little. If it could be fired from a regular rifled barrel, then maybe it would be worth carrying it – but in most situations when you just want to lay some fire onto an area, it would just be a wastefuly expensive bullet or a pain in the arse to switch barrels.
I think the XM25 ammo was spun off from an aborted attempt to replace the HMGs; the magic bullet could have a future, but I don’t see it encroaching on the cheap and simple enduring solution offered by the HMG.
A little bit of hyperbole there isn’t there, Marcase? Sandbags with overhead cover are still reasonable protection. Walls and vehicles were only ever concealment rather than protection, unless particularly thick or solid.
Replacing a rifle – well, there is hardly a standard rifle in a modern British Section. Some sources would suggest that a soldier with a specialist weapon is more likely to use it than if he had a standard rifle, although that was more of an observation of the amateur* soldiery of the conflicts of the 1940′s and ’50′s
If the section was to follow the concept of many specialist weapons and PDW rather than rifle and machinegun, then a HE-chucker like the XM-25 would make sense.
For the alternative, perhaps a carbine with a smart 40mm launcher attachment? A multi-shot metalstorm system? With the new MV grenades they would reach out to about 600m for an area target, which would match the section rifles but be outranged by the section MG and marksman’s rifles.
*as in those who joined up for the duration of the conflict, rather than those for whom the army was a career pre-war.
Mr.fred – these videos don’t show it, but the XM-25 was also developed to clear out rooms. Quite impressive stuff.
Overhead cover would of course offer some protection, but that would mean it’s a stationary target (que airstrike).
Again I like to point out the XM-25 allows company/platoons to target hiding enemies without having to call heavy artillery or TACAIR. We’re still talking engagements within <800m.
The XM-25 –as a spin-off to the ill-fated OICW– is a pure (one man!) infantry weapon that could replace the suppressive fire offered by organic (crew-served) LMGs/GPMGs or (metalstorm) grenade launchers for the very reason you don't need to suppress anymore; an XM-25 'smart' airburst results in a kill instead of merely keeping the bad guys' head down allowing your fire teams to maneuver/flank.
(Regarding OICW, check out Daewoo's K-11 20mm HEAB rifle).
Regarding Sandia's guided .50cal; besides (again) suppresive fire, vehicle mounted guided .50cal Lsr guided rounds would be able to attack snipers/spotters in MOUT/FIBUA scenarios without having to blast away at civilian buildings.
Precision engagements are the present and future of modern warfare (see Libya).
Your enthusiasm for it isn’t shared by all. Including users. The grenade is seriously small for example. 40mm is unimpressive enough and this is much smaller.
If you forget about people hiding behind walls and sandbags for a moment, the profile of rifleman simply laying down a few hundred metres away isn’t such a big and easy target to hit with a regular bullet – and that’s assuming you can pin-point his exact position.
There’s a lot of shooting air and dirt with regular bullets, whether from a rifle or machine gun. Might an XM25 like weapon be more effective, round-for-round, than a GPMG? And if more effective, perhaps less ammo required and a lighter overall load?
The thing is a pig. It’s big and heavy. It’s no more accurate than a rifle either. And it has a tiny HE punch, less than a quarter that of a grenade. The ammunition natures are also highly restricted because the ammo is fixed in length so it can fit in a magazine.
It’s probably got some scope. But it is far from a wonder weapon and has a big weight penalty over other grenade launchers that throw more punch and are also aimed by a scared human being.
Re: “Computer simulations showed an unguided bullet under real-world conditions could miss a target more than a half mile away (1,000 meters away) by 9.8 yards (9 meters), but a guided bullet would get within 8 inches (0.2 meters)”
That means they claim a single round will fall in an area one 2025th of the area of an unguided one.
Recognising that (a) there is probably a large amount of hype here, (b) it matters much less at close ranges ‘cos you will hit anyway and (c) its only as good as the laser’s accuracy, that’s quite an advantage in weight of ammunition carried. Wonder if they can make it at 1/2025th the price?
Re: The thing is a pig. It’s big and heavy. It’s no more accurate than a rifle either. And it has a tiny HE punch.
I reckon so too, though press reports seem bullish (but then they would, wouldn’t they).
I wonder what if you could combine the two technologies to give a laser guided 25mm air burst round…simples!
There are also such things as loopholes in walls. You might be able to shoot past, and explode behind, but it would be far enough away that the small grenade would not endanger the target.
Then there are the issues of getting a good range in certain situations.
Suppression is still an important consideration, since you still have to identify your target, aim, range, re-aim and shoot. If you can’t keep your head up to do that, then you can’t do it.
Which is why indirect fire weapons lobbing bigger bangs still very much have a place. A UGL can lob HE pretty accurately indirectly. No it doesn’t offer you the nifty ranging options but more of the weight you carry is made up of what you need to do the damage, HE. And you’re also less likely to get shot.
Still good for doors and windows though.
Golf bag?
So is a UGL.
Like I said. It has scope but much less than you’d think.
Wow, two for two.
My thoughts were
“Wasnt there a problem with the Bren Gun, it was too accurate and so failed in its role of suppressive five, maybe guided ammunition for snipers?”
and
“Yeah, but its still only a 25mm grenade, with even less explosive to fit in the funky fuses, how accurate do you have to be to actualy disable a target?”
On larger scale, if we want more varied weapons, surely we’re going to need larger sub units.
A four man fireteam already has 4 different weapons, a basic assault rifle, one with a grenade launcher attachement, a light machine gun and a designated marksmans rifle.
Actualy I thought they were section weapons? So there were 5 basic rifles in an 8 man team?
In any event, if we add a guided grenade launcher, our 8 man section has 4 special weapons, if we keep this up, we’ll have a section where every man has his own unique weapon.
Maybe if we brought in a 3 section “sub platoon”, bugger, I’ve just reinvented Commando 21, never mind
There was a passing mention (recently) the RM reorganising into 12-man patrol teams (while in A-stan)
+ weight penalty of specialist weapons countered with PDWs being issued more widely? (this idea did not go far when I last tried it on!)
Patrols are already done in multiples which is 12-15 men. Essentially a fighting patrol. Lugging a specialist weapon and a PDW? Cheers easy!
Phil
So why not organise on that level?
It jsut seems utterly insane that we organise on a four man fire team, and patrol in 15′s.
Or from the outside anyway, maybe theres a crazy logic…
@DominicJ: the idea of a multiple originated in NI, and it’s organised into 3 bricks (fire teams), so it’s already normal to re-org that way when doing certain types of tour. In Iraq, armoured infantry typically operated in pairs of Warriors with a single fire team in the back too
The Platoon Commander organises his platoon as he sees fit. The whole brick, section, multiple, platoon thing works out well. As you have read its just 4 plus 4 plus 4 plus either PC or Plt Sgt. In reality though you task organise.
We were (?) speculating how this ” its just 4 plus 4 plus 4 plus either PC or Plt Sgt. In reality though you task organise” becomes more complex if the specialist weapons will proliferate over std “rifle” (which -with a stretch- we can state still exists today)
The guided missile bullet could be a useful capability for long range sniping, especially in situations where it might be essential to take out a high value target. I just wonder whether the latest generation of computerised optical gun sights which make automatic adjustments for range, wind, altitude and so on give more bang for the buck? I imagine that the unit cost per round of this system is punitively expensive at this time.
As for the XM25, my mates in USA familiar with such matters tell me that it’s viewed as a very good suppressive weapon because you can lob a fair few at the enemy in rapid succession, but it isn’t clear how many combat kills it has actually achieved. The jury is still out on this one.
What the XM25 has done is encouraged 40 mm ammo makers to develop a similar capability in their rounds. in terms of terminal effect, 25 mm is good but 40 mm is better.
As we adopt infantry weapons of ever increasing complexity, weight is the currency through improved capability is invariably bought. The weight burden is increased not only by the need to carry an additional weapon and its ammunition, but also by the sights and batteries required to fire it accurately.
What I’d like to see is a 40 mm UGL on an assault with sights that can lob a delayed fuse grenade to achieve the same effect as an XM25.
@DominicJ
The Bren Gun was one of the best infantry weapons the British Army ever used and was an ideal section machine gun. What made it reliable was having changeable barrels, which enabled it to keep up sustained fire for long periods. This feature made it a template for all future LMGs. The Bren didn’t have the same kind of beaten zone as a tripod mounted GPMG because it was never conceived to be a medium machine gun.
Would a 40mm grenade launcher be more flexible as it can fire other rounds such as smoke and illumination? I think there are even beehive rounds, turning it in to a large shotgun.
If you want airbusting rounds, STK have a kit that fits on to any 40mm HV GMG. Shouldn’t be too difficult to adapt to a multi-shot MV grenade launcher?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/thursday/fong.pdf
@ Monty – STK thinking along the same lines, LV rather than MV but…
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/WednesdayInter12330Hok.pdf
Warning – contains the term warfighter.
People might find this of interest:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf
find, not fing…
RE the magic bullet: Scale it up and use on tanks and ships. Handy on a AC-130 gunship too?
If the cost was not prohibitive you could also use them full time in things like Apaches – with the bullets programmed to spin themselves like a regular bullet unless given a laser to target.
Is the miniaturisation of the electronics also a leap? If you can make a large bullet laser guided you can make bigger objects laser guided too. There have been previous trials of dropping gps guided mortars from aircraft. This could be a competing technology.
Thought this might be of interest too;
air bursting 40mm from a UGL
http://www.gdatp.com/factsheets/A120_MPRS.pdf
Thanks Andy, welcome to Think Defence
Some interesting figures in the link I posted above.
“Today 45% of the worlds population live in cities.
470-85% are expected to live in cities by 2025.
MOUT will most probably be more common.
Combat ranges for low level units will not increase!
Short ranges however often means quick engagements.
Future weapons must therefore be able to quickly engage targets”
“USMC after action report Iraq
Engagements conducted with small arms occurred in the 20-30 meter range.
Shots over 100 m were rare.
The maximum range was less than 300 m”
“What to do at short ranges?
MOUT will be more common in the future.
At short ranges you should not fire HE rounds!
An integrated PDW saves weight compared to a modular 5.56 mm rifle.”
Are we learning the wrong lessons in Afghanistan? Will future combat be fought at shorter ranges,not longer? If so, and quick reaction becomes even more important, would a specialised weapon without a intergrated “back-up” be a liability?
@Gareth,
Don’t forget that the experience in Afghanistan was completely different from Iraq. More than 75% of the population live in remote villages. More than 50% of engagements take place at ranges above 300 metres.
The truth is we don’t know where, or who we will be fighting next. we can’t afford to buy 100,000 new weapons every time we go into action. Which is why we need a true general purpose capability.
I don’t think that ordinary infantry soldiers should carry PDWs. But I do think that 40 mm UGLs are a highly flexible weapon. Firing a LV 40 mm HE round into a room that needs to be cleared is not dissimilar to chucking in a grenade.
Is there “one lesson to learn them all”?
Surely if we learn anything it should be that, on top of the main service weapon, we should maintain big arse stocks of other weapons?
A supplementary buy of 10,000 PDWs for Iraq and 10,000 DMRs for Afghanistan would have pennies in the scheme of things.
Issue them for work up and deployment cycles to any who request them?
“The truth is we don’t know where, or who we will be fighting next. we can’t afford to buy 100,000 new weapons every time we go into action.”
Very true, but 10,000 or 5,000?
The XM-25 counter-defilade weapon has caused heated debate on various defence fora for a few years now, but seems to be panning out in service. The guided 0.50 round was new to me and appears a lot more problematic. At close range it’s unnecessary or even counterproductive for obvious reasons and will require you to keep swapping over ammunition in whatever weapon it’s used in whenever it’s required (normal ball/tracer/API-T etc will suffice most of the time). At long range, in order to take advantage of its accuracy, the target needs to be lased from a very stable platform. You’re not going to be able to slap a laser designator on a tripod mounted 0.50 or a sniper rifle because of recoil, vibration and dust obscuration. I even wonder how stable some of the remotely operated weapon stations that are becoming very popular on armoured vehicles and warships would be – though I’ve seen some that are very stable indeed – shooting a coke can at 800 metres is a party trick favoured by one of the manufacturers. A role I could see would be for long range sniping with a traditional team with one designating and the other shooting, but all the current effort is going into a tank-like FCS that will make one shot kills at insane ranges possible with conventional ammunition, do away with the No. 2 in the team and double the amount of snipers you could theoretically deploy. Guided rounds make some sense in larger calibres (for instance the DART round for the OTO Melera 76mm/62 super rapid) and were once under development for air to air applications, but then you find yourself asking why not just use a missile instead? Modern dogfight AAMs used with HMS give off-boresight engagement angles that no fixed gun could ever achieve. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.
“Surely if we learn anything it should be that, on top of the main service weapon, we should maintain big arse stocks of other weapons?”
And someone was complaining about inefficient military spending?
GJ, that is why ARs are still the most commonly used platform, you are flexible to engage out to 500m if you know what you’re doing yet still be able to room clear. A PDW on the other hand, may be good at room clearing, but meet an enemy 200m away and you are in trouble.
@Monty
I LOVE 40mm to bits, but they do have weaknesses, like needing height to arm. You can’t use them in a room, the round will hit the ceiling and bounce back, no detonation, and crowded environments can cause civilian casulaties. They also only have a 200m range, the M203 rounds. M19 rounds are bigger though, but that’s a support weapon.
@Chris
“Guided rounds make some sense in larger calibres (for instance the DART round for the OTO Melera 76mm/62 super rapid) and were once under development for air to air applications, but then you find yourself asking why not just use a missile instead?”
Missiles are expensive and big
A destroyer only has about 40-60 AAMs for the whole campaign unless you can resupply, shells are more compact, so you can store much more of them in a magazine.
And missiles are expensive.
At least with guns, you can also shoot irritating speedboats. Using a ASTER on a speedboat might be overkill, if it’s even possible?
@Observer
Guided gun rounds (as opposed to course correcting fuzes like PGK) have a habit of coming in more expensive than missiles for a given amount of bang. Look at Excaliber for example – c. $100k to deliver a 155mm package. There is no need to do away with the gun for firing unguided ammo as you now have missiles that are comparatively compact – CAMM for example does not need bulky directors and can be bolted on to a ship wherever space permits – it doesn’t need to be high up to achieve good arcs of fire. Smaller still, RAM has 21 missiles per launcher. With a missile you’re also not limited to what you can cram into something of the calibre of the main gun you’re using.
Another big problem with the 0.50 is the non availability of conventional ammo. I would wager a smoothbore in rifle calibre is going to be less accurate and offer worse ballistics than a rifled weapon (the projectile takes up a lot of room that could otherwise be used for propellant). Some machineguns – recent M2s for example – have quick change barrels, so you could swap from smoothbore to rifled, but what a pain that would be, especially on a remote mounting. Changing the barrel on most sniper rifles is an armourer job. The L96 and 115 are much easier than the M40 but still require a vise, special wrench etc.
@Chris
The Excaliber is an artillery round, and a semi- experimental one at that, you’re talking about AA/Anti-Small boat guns, two different things. For example, the 76mm does not really need to carry an explosive load, though airbursting does help. OTOH, the Excaliber HAS to carry explosives as that is it’s main design function.
Might be better to compare standard round costs vs missile costs to get a better scale comparison. And I mean AA gun rounds, not artillery.
haha! i linked that to TD x)
Its very funky, but I cant see it being used beyond snipers/F-Observers/SF really… unless the logistics and design changes enough for ordinary troops to use in the rough frontline.
But we’re getting closer to ‘pocket artillery’ alright.
Though Observers comment regarding them being used for AA rounds sounds like an interesting ideas
IR-homing AA rounds?
The very fact that we can pack electronic guidance into rounds this small is pretty impressive tech! And to think I was impressed with the Vulcano!
There is potential application for the guided .50cal round in maritime force protection against the FAC/FIAC swarm attack. Accuracy is difficult at best from a moving platform, and targets of Boghammer and similar size need considerable weight of fire to stop. This would certainly help.
@Observer
Not sure what you mean by the 76 not needing to carry explosives? Does it directly hit incoming sea skimmers then? Given the number you generally have to fire, AA rounds generally are a pretty expensive proposition vs missiles in cost per kill (they have other associated costs which male them still less economic such as generally higher manning and logistic requirements) which is why the British Army canned light AA. The Excalibur is actually in service and has seen combat. Can the same be said of the guided 76mm?
I’m not anti guided gun launched guided munitions per se. Volcano in 127mm, with its worthwhile payload looks to be a really good idea in a number of scenarios and the different seekers available make it all the more so. The guided 76mm looks like a solution in search of a problem though although I accept I could be wrong about that.
@Somewhatinvolved
I’m not sure about the counter-swarm tactics argument. If you can hold a SALH laser designator still on the small, fast, manoeuverable target you might as well spend out on the stabilisation and fire control to pump loads of unguided .50 (or better still, something much larger) into the target. Unguided .50 has got to be orders of magnitude cheaper and it’s going to have better ballistics. The ideal answer to swarm tactics is a system that can rapidly engage a lot of targets simultaneously. The US Navy has invested in IR all the way homing RAM and is investing in IR guided 70mm rockets from helos that, whilst not simultanous are genuinely fire and forget. A system like CAMM/Sea-cepeter with autonomous missiles not requiring directors or a trainable launcher can engage multiple targets simultaneously, but is obviously an expensive way of doing business.
USMC wants 40mm rather than 25mm…
http://www.military.com/news/article/2011/marines-want-more-potent-air-burst-weapon.html
“There are some 40mm air-burst systems out there, commercially available — the Israelis have one … but I don’t think that anyone has the solution right now,” Clark said.
In addition to the M203 launcher, the Marines hope to find a system that also works with its M32A1 multi-shot grenade launcher, Military.com reported.
“If you have an air-burst capability on a multi-shot grenade launcher, you would be wrecking people,” Clark said.
http://www.guns.com/marine-corps-wants-armys-xm25-gernade-launcher-but-with-40mm-round.html
I rest my case…
@GJ, did you notice in your earlier links STK actually mentioned and had a photo of the A2 with it fitted, never mind a bloody 8th globemaster, get some of these beauties, just a shame we’re not in a conflict where dickers & shooters are using compounds for cover at the moment……oh hang on!!
could be useful in a denel ntw.
but section wise i dont think so, as we have too many variation/specialist weapons already.
So very good for sf but not for regular, at least not for another 5 to 15 years.
On the ship wise if it could be linked up to a ‘multiple targeting laser pod’ it could be very useful as a very cheap sub-missile as SWI said to be used against FAC/FIAC
“Not sure what you mean by the 76 not needing to carry explosives? Does it directly hit incoming sea skimmers then? Given the number you generally have to fire, AA rounds generally are a pretty expensive proposition vs missiles in cost per kill”.
Yes. Skin on skin kill. And are you aware of the difference in magnitude of the cost between a round and a missile? A RIM-67 costs almost half a million dollars. A single 76mm round is, at super inflated prices, ~500 USD. You have to fire off a thousand rounds just to get cost equalization. At 0.5 rounds per second, that’s non-stop fire for 8 min 20 seconds, though I suspect the barrel will melt 1st.
@ Paul g – I did indeed – STK ahead of the competition again. I just think 40mm grenade launchers (LV and MV) are just more versatile than a dedicated air-burst system; it was the original reason given for buying the UGL in the first place, to replace the smoke and illumination lobbing capability of the 51mm mortar. Why waste a smart round when a dumb one will do? I also think it would be useful for peace-keeping, etc, with less-lethal rounds and such.
The FCS/fuse setter should also be fixable to a multi-shot launcher, so undermining the slow reload argument.
GJ, it is a nice system, but with all things in the world, there are costs. Bummer.
The 3 down sides I can see to the system is:
1) The current “problem of the day” for most countries. Cost.
2) Having a GL and a RF unit on the front of the rifle unbalances it forward, making it uncomfortable to carry and fire and potentially affecting accuracy, though people who complain about the M-203 seems rare, so it might simply be a theoretical problem.
3) Infantryman: “You want me to carry MORE??!!”
Though like the M-203, it could simply be a theoretical problem.
reading the info though it says the programming unit weighs 300gms!! electronics in the grenade
paul, it’ll still unbalance the unit. Fulcrum, lever, load. And the load is right at the front end too.
The Westland Lynx Mk 7 was modified to carry forward firing 20 mm cannons, although the AAC never acquired any. In this sense, a laser guided cannon round would be very useful as it would allow the aircraft a limited manouvre envelope whilst firing, and keeping the aircraft at a safer distance from small arms fire.
Also, a turret mounted laser turret could be bolted on as part of the role kit, like the FLIR ball on the Lynx Mk 9A. I’m sure the Lynx Mk 9A’s in Afghanistan can take the 20 mm cannon as well, giving it some growth potential. Gunship on the cheap anyone?