Matthew Cox in Army Times:

Army weapons officials said Tuesday that soldiers will test out the service’s experimental airburst weapon in the war zone this summer.

The XM25, a shoulder-fired weapon that shoots exploding 25mm projectiles, is “going to be issued to a unit this summer for an assessment down range in theater,” Program Executive Office Soldier commander Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller told an audience at the National Defense Industrial Association’s International Infantry & Joint Services Small Arms Systems Symposium.

This could be a truly revolutionary weapon if the 25mm grenades are effective enough.

This has been a long time in coming, it seems. Murdoc once wrote

Unless the XM25 isn’t performing well, which doesn’t seem to be the case from what I’ve been able to gather, some should be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible for some real-world testing. It’s the only way to be sure.

That was in 2005.

Im chung-bin the the chief of staff of ROKA examines new South korean double barreled rifle K-11 in ground weapon conference.2008.11.11 Daejeun South korea This rifle uses 20mm airburst ammunition and 5.56mm NATO. 20mm launcher operates as bolt action and use 5 round mag. This weapon will be fielded in next year.

Like the XM29 OICW, it appears to weigh a ton.

Cross-posted from GunPundit.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) sent a letter to the US Army asking for them to hold an open competition to select the best rifle for our soldiers. Here’s part of it:

I am certain that we can all agree that America’s soldiers should have the best technology in their hands. There is nothing more important to a soldier than their rifle, and there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon — not just a weapon that is –good enough.” Unfortunately, considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M-16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon.

He notes that if the M4 is the best, then that’s great. But let’s make sure we’re doing the right thing. Go read the whole thing at Defense Tech.

According to the Brand Name Justification Letter:

Currently Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc. (H&K) is the only company that can meet the Government’s needs. H&K is the only company that manufactures the 416 Upper Receiver Kit. The 416 Upper Receiver Kit is an upper receiver replacement that allows soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon’s interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent. The elimination of the gas tube currently used in the M4 Carbine means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained. There isn’t another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system.

That’s a good description of the system, and note that it’s not just a new “barrel” that’s being used but an entire upper receiver.

However, the “there isn’t another company that offers these features in their products” isn’t accurate. The first alternative that comes to mind is LW Rifles, which built the weapons Murdoc fired at the SHOT Show last January. LWRC’s (formerly Leitner-Wise) system, I believe, does everything the H&K system does.

I don’t know how the LWRC system compares cost-wise. Maybe the H&K is significantly cheaper? And I don’t know how ready they are to begin large-scale production, but this order is only for 84 uppers with diopter rear sights, 10 spare barrels, and associated tools and mounting gear.

If the wares on display at the SHOT Show were any indication, piston-driven ARs are going to be the next big rage, and if Special Forces use of HK416s, HK416 uppers, and SCARs proves the value of the piston system in US weapons, manufacturers are going to have to scramble to keep up with the demand.

The 6.5 MPC (Multi-Purpose Cartridge), based on a standard 5.56 NATO case wit a modified neck and shoulder, has a number of benefits over the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel:

Ease and cost of conversion (weapons conversion), ammo capacity, and ammo weight (ammo carry capacity at a given load weight). The 6.5 MPC utilizes standard AR-15/M16/M4/M4A1 magazines and bolts, and will function in both the SOPMOD M4/M4A1 Carbine and belt-fed FN M249 SAW/LMG, provided you switch out the barrel(s). No further modification is reportedly necessary. Mag capacity for the 6.5mm MPC is 30 rounds (although you might still want to down-load it to 28, as many do with 5.56mm ammo for reliability purposes). The 6.8mm SPC doesn’t stack properly in standard 5.56mm M4/M4A1 mags, and the magazines that have been developed for it limit ammo capacity to 25 rounds, as opposed to 30 rounds, so the 6.8 SPC mags will fit inside current military mag carry pouches. You can also use 5.56 NATO stripper clips to load 6.5 MPC rounds into the mag. At present, there are no 6.8 SPC stripper clips.

6.5 MPC ammo will reportedly feed as reliably as 5.56×45mm NATO ball ammo can utilize standard M27 links (belt links) with no modification, so it will feed reportedly feed reliably through the M249 SAW. You only have to switch the barrel to 6.5mm caliber. Not so with the 6.8 SPC, which would require modification to the M27 link.

While there’s apparently a lot of resistance to switching calibers at this point in time, at least the 6.5 MPC addresses a number of the points brought up by critics of the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel. Murdoc must admit, though, that he doesn’t see any hope for any real change coming any time soon.

Read the whole thing at Defense Review, and also be sure to check out the SSK page on this offering.

Major hat tip to ACE.

XB-70 flew for three minutes at 2,000 mph.

I’ve long wanted to do a big XB-70 write-up, but it’s one of those things I’ve never got around to. Someday.

Meanwhile, here’s some eye candy:

NASA’s caption:

The X-15A-2 with drop tanks and ablative coating is shown parked on the NASA ramp in front of the XB-70. These aircraft represent two different approaches to flight research. The X-15 was a research airplane in the purest sense, whereas the XB-70 was an experimental bomber intended for production but diverted to research when production was cancelled by changes in the Department of Defense’s offensive doctrine.

The X-15A-2 had been modified from its original configuration with a longer fuselage and drop tanks. To protect it against aerodynamic heating, researchers had coated it with an ablative coating covered by a layer of white paint. These changes allowed the X-15A-2 to reach a maximum speed of Mach 6.7, although it could be sustained for only a brief period.

The XB-70, by contrast, was designed for prolonged high-altitude cruise flight at Mach 3. The aircraft’s striking shape–with a long forward fuselage, canards, a large delta wing, twin fins, and a box-like engine bay–allowed it to ride its own Mach 3 shockwave, so to speak. A joint NASA-Air Force program used the aircraft to collect data in support of the U.S supersonic transport (SST) program, which never came to fruition because of environmental concerns.

Murdoc’s caption? Simply

Zoom.

That’s a lot of miles per hour sitting on the ramp, there. (More NASA pics and videos here.)

U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sgt. James C. Sanchez aims in with the M-32 multiple-shot grenade launcher, an experimental six-barreled weapon that can deliver six 40 mm grenades in under three seconds. Marines are fielding the new rapid-fire weapon to troops to boost small-team capabilities to deliver greater indirect firepower. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Gunnery Sgt. Mark Oliva

Pic from the DoD’s Transformation Photo Archive for March 2006.

This weapon is, without a doubt, the Mikor MGL-140 which was noted on MO and covered by DefenseReview here and here. On the super-sized version at the DoD, you can see that it’s marked “40mm M32″.

UPDATE: Now that I’m looking into it, it appears that this has been getting coverage already. DefenseReview has another post up, and Blackfive has more, as well.

Sheesh. You step away from the computer for a couple of days and the world leaves you behind…

UPDATE 2: More recent info on this, including how the Marines are putting it to use and a picture from the 2007 SHOT Show, here.

I really wonder if this isn’t some attempt to get an M4-flavor carbine, though I don’t understand why they’d have to play games to buy more of the same. Unless this is being driven by those who cried about “open competition” when the XM8 was on the fast-track, and now they need to walk the talk just enough to get their program the green light. Say, for instance, the XM8 or another weapon comes in with far better specs, but a cheaper option which meets these dumbed-down requirements can make the “good enough” claim and wins the contract.

If we’re going to go through the pain of a change, we shouldn’t be settling for “good enough”.

The big drop in minimum requirements from the OICW1 spec and the vagueness of the whole thing really have me wondering what’s up. If they just want more M4s (which is the first thing that comes to mind when I read this solicitation), why not just buy more M4s? That’s what I think is so fishy.

Make sure to read Heartless Libertarian’s post.

If the XM8 works as advertised, it should be able to compete well and have the advantage of having gone so far in deveopment recently. Get rid of that stupid proprietary mounting system, add Picatinny rails, and they should be golden. (You’ll notice that the requirement calls for the rails to be “incorporated on each weapon”. When critics of the XM8 complained about the integrated system (a criticism with which I agreed), HK immediately rolled out M1913 rail add-ons. The next step is to ditch the propietary system and incorporate M1913s to begin with.

The HK416, too, might fit the bill. I’ve also wondered if the SCAR-L might not work, but I think it might be too heavy, and someone in my comments noted that it was. Not sure on that and no time to look right now. If someone could verify that, I’d be much obliged.

UPDATE Commenter Steve helpfully posted these numbers for our consumption:

G36C- 6.28 lb (HKpro)
G36 is 7.28 lb (from HKPRO)
HK416- 7.3-7.7 lb (10-14 inch barrel) (HK website)
HK53- 5.96 (~8 inch barrel) (HK pro)
Colt M4 Commando – 5.38 lb (Colt website)
Colt M4 – 5.9 lb (colt website)
Busmaster- Has a bunch from 5-7 lb’s
SCAR-l 7.7 lb (according Defense tech)
Steyr AUG A3 – 8.2 lb (Steyr-Man. website)
Sig 552 – 7.0 lb (8.9″) (Stg 90 page)
Sig 551 – 7.7 lb (16″) (Stg 90 page)

I honestly had no idea that the HK416 was so (relatively) heavy. When the OICW1 was shelved, I meant to do an in-depth post on the HK416 but never got to it. If I had made the time and done a little research, I’d have known. But MO readers once again save the day. Well done!

And, for what it’s worth, if this is a ploy to get more M4s, I’m not necessarily opposed to the plan. If we need more time to get the OICW program back on track and require a large number of weapons to hold us over (due to the delay and the heavy use in the combat zones the current inventory has seen) I have no problem with more of the same, or a incremental upgrade of the same. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense to swap out primary weapons in a large part of the military just to do it again in a few years when the OICW (or equivalent) comes online. For all the griping and all the debate over the 5.56, it’s not like our guys in the field have sub-par weapons. The M16/M4 system is definitely up to the task. It’s just that there might be something better out there. Plus, it seems to me that a carbine is just plain not going perform as well as the troops want in a lot of cases, due to the fact that it’s a carbine. A carbine is a weapon that compromises performance for size and weight.

Repeat: A carbine is a compromise. That’s why there is such a thing.

So if this is just to hold us over for a couple of years, let’s drop the theatrics and just get more of what we’ve got.

But if this is really and truly a bid to get us the next-generation standard weapons, someone needs to explain why the bar is so low.

A pair of new solicitations for 5.56mm weapons, a carbine and an LMG, have been issued. The carbine differs from the OICW Increment I (carbine variant) specs in the following areas:

• Reliability
  • OICW1 Carbine: 18,000 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class III)
  • New Carbine: 3800 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class III)
  • OICW1 Carbine: 2300 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class I and II combined)
  • New Carbine: 600 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class I and II combined)
• Barrel Life:
  • OICW1 Carbine: 15,000 rounds minimum
  • New Carbine: 10,000 rounds minimum
• Accuracy:
  • OICW1 Carbine: >60% at 150m
  • New Carbine: 50% at 300m
• Fire Rate without degrading accuracy:
  • OICW1 Carbine: Minimum 45 rounds/minute
  • New Carbine: Minimum 45 rounds/minute
• Additional New Carbine requirements:
  • Mil-Std-1913 (Picatinny-style) rails incorporated into the weapon
  • Compatibility with the M203 grenade launcher
  • Weight of no more 6.5 pounds unloaded

Murdoc’s no expert, but not only does this new requirement look like a major step back from the earlier request, but it looks a lot like the M4 SOPMOD.

The biggest difference, of course, between this solicitation and the earlier is the fact that this is calling for a stand-alone carbine, not a modular weapon system sharing 80% parts commonality with a special compact version and a designated marksman version.

Another big difference is that the light machine gun is for a separate stand-alone model, not a variant of the baseline weapon sharing 50% part commonality. Here are the differences between the OICW1 LMG and the New LMG:

• Reliability
  • OICW1 LMG: 18,000 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class III)
  • New LMG: 16,000 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class III)
  • OICW1 LMG: 1900 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class I and II combined)
  • New LMG: 1600 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class I and II combined)
• Barrel life:
  • OICW1 LMG: 15,000 rounds minimum
  • New LMG: 15,000 rounds
• Accuracy:
  • OICW1 LMG: 40% at 600m
  • New LMG: Not specified
• Fire Rate without degrading accuracy:
  • OICW1 LMG : 72 rounds/minute
  • New LMG: Not specified

Now, of course, these are all minimum requirements and manufacturers are free to surpass them. Murdoc would hope that those doing so would get special consideration, all else being equal. And this is quite possibly a stop-gap request to tide things over until the new OICW requirements are finalized and that program can move ahead.

But this all looks a bit fishy. Thoughts? (I plan to post a bit more later as time allows.)