Archive for the ‘X Weapons’ Category

ATK Delivers First XM25 Prototypes to U.S. Army for Testing and Evaluation

This seems to be the first new news on this weapon for quite some time. I did a write-up (based on a Strategy Page post, actually) back in February of 2004. Check it out for the basics on this smart grenade launcher that was developed from part of the XM29 OICW.

The XM8, developed from the other part of the XM29, is sort of like this baby’s big brother. But the little guy has a good chance of showing up his sibling in the end. While the XM8 hopes to become the new main assault rifle, it’s really just a new generation of an existing idea. The XM25 could usher in a whole new era of infantry weapons.

The XM25 fires a High Explosive (HE), air bursting 25mm round capable of defeating an enemy behind a wall, inside a building or in a foxhole. The advanced design allows the operator to program the round so that it flies to the target and detonates at a precise point in the air. It does not require impact to detonate.

While the trusted M203 has served well for a long time, this new grenade launcher is cutting edge:

The revolutionary fire control system for the XM25 employs an advanced laser rangefinder that transmits information to the chambered 25mm round. As the round flies downrange to the target, it precisely measures the distance traveled and detonates at exactly the right moment to deliver maximum effectiveness. The XM25 increases the warfighter’s probability of hit-to-kill performance by up to 500 percent over existing weapons. It also extends the effective range of the soldier’s individual weapon to more than 500 meters.

Six prototypes have been delivered to the Army for testing. If all goes according to plan, the XM8 could enter production in 2008.

Secretary Rumsfeld Townhall Meeting in Kandahar, Afghanistan

DoD News:

QUESTION: My name is Sergeant Lief from Honolulu, Hawaii. My question to you sir, is, is XM8 going to replace M16 or the M4? If so, when?

RUMSFELD: Is what?

QUESTION: The XM8, the new assault rifle I’ve been seeing in Army Times, sir.

RUMSFELD: General Barno, what’s the answer?

BARNO: The answer is we don’t know yet. It’s a good question. We’re looking at different rifles for the infantry. That decision has not yet been made.

My recommendation is that both Sgt. Leif and Secretary Rumsfeld keep an eye on Murdoc Online for all the latest on the XM8.

But this is the gem:

QUESTION: Chief Warrant Officer Anthony Domar, 165 MI. It seems like in the media there’s a lot of negative and –

RUMSFELD: No. [Laughter]. You’ve got to be kidding.

QUESTION: Do you have any influence on showing some of the wonderful things and good things that these soldiers do? And my father, who is U.S. Navy Retired, would like to know that also.

RUMSFELD: And you’re asking who has influence on the media so that they might show something that’s actually happening instead of something — I mean something positive that’s actually happening?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

RUMSFELD: Instead of something that’s negative?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

RUMSFELD: Is that the question? Let me repeat the question. [Laughter]. He has the impression that from time to time some of the media leave the impression that the only things that happen are negative, is that right?

QUESTION: Sir, yes, sir. That’s pretty close.

RUMSFELD: You’re asking me why? [Laughter].

QUESTION: The answer I got down in Iraq was it sells, but again, folks back home say they disagree with that.

RUMSFELD: The truth is there seems to be, if you look at the front of almost any newspaper, any television story, the pattern tends to be that it’s a negative story. That that is what sells. That is what attracts people. For whatever reason, I don’t know.

I do know this, that the people who come to this country and go to Iraq and come out are struck by the contrast, the stark contrast between what they see in terms of progress and contribution by the men and women in uniform, what they see as opposed to what they read and hear.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I can tell you this. Our country’s been around for well over 200 years now and it suggests that the American people have a pretty good center of gravity. They must have an inner gyroscope that centers them because they’re able to read all the negative things and hear all the negative things and yet they’re able to sift through it and sort through it and come to reasonably right decisions about what’s really happening.

I can tell you what’s really happening. You, the people in this room and the people across this country from the United States in uniform, the coalition countries that are increasing all the time as NATO takes a bigger and bigger role, are doing an absolutely superb job for the people of Iraq and for the people of the world, helping to make this a stable, moderate Muslim country, and in an important part of the world at an important point in history, and I thank all of you for what you’re doing. [emphasis mine]

Rummy Rocks. I know a lot of people hate his guts. And I know not every decision and plan has been perfect. But he’s got Murdoc’s respect.

And remember that question about the armored Humvees? The one planted by a reporter? My guess is that this one wasn’t planted by a reporter.

UPDATE: Here’s a pic from Frontline Photos from April 14th showing Rumsfeld after the town hall meeting:

New and improved firepower

Lots of good stuff, including LMG/SAW discussion. I’ll write more tomorrow.

It appears that comments are down. My host probably had to disable them due to the fact that I’ve been getting bombed by comment spam for the past couple of day. I apologize for the bastards that made this necessary. They’re really sorry. Really.

Also, there’s now comment moderation in place since I upgraded to MT 3.15. I’m not sure what I’ll be doing about this. But have no fear. Your comment will be posted.

Here’s a comment I was trying to post on the XM8 will have to compete post:

Chad: There already is a 100-round drum magazine for the XM8 (for 5.56, anyway – things obviously might be different if a different cartridge were chosen).

And I think the “quick-change” confusion with the XM8 stems from their claims of the barrel being able to be changed quickly compared to an M16/M4. They’re not talking about real “quick-change” mid-fight for a SAW gunner.

Poodleshooter round needs to go

Heads Bunker usually lays it all out on the line for you. This time is not an exception, so I think you can tell just from the title what he thinks about this issue. He notes the use of the M14, and he notes that the problem with the M16/M4 isn’t the weapon itself but the pea it’s sending downrange. As I’ve noted many many times before, if the problem was the short barrels of the M4 so many of our troops have, they would be using M16s instead of M14s for sharpshooter work in Afghanistan and Iraq. Follow the link for details.

I came across it via James at Hell in a Handbasket, who shares his own thoughts on the subject. James also mentions the fact that the 5.56 might be just fine for SAW work, something he’s brought up before. He’s got a link to his earlier post on this in his latest, so check it out.

Friends don’t let friends shoot .223.

New firepower

And it’s not just the 5.56 vs. 6.8, either. He also brings up the M9 9mm auto pistol, which really makes a lot of people mad.

The letter he posts, though, seems to have been written before all the questions about the plan to go with the XM8 surfaced.

This discussion started in the comments section of the previous post, but I’ll break it out here. I’ve mentioned this stuff before in various places (as have others) but here it is in one place.

The recent Sources Sought Notices for infantry weapons require a light machine gun (LMG) variant to replace the M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW).

I think there’s a place for both the 5.56 SAW and the 7.62 LMG (though, as always, maybe a 6.8 compromise would work). The lesser stopping power of the 5.56 isn’t such a liability in the SAW role, as it’s mostly setting base of fire and holding bad guys in place, so the “more ammo” argument carries a lot more weight (so to speak) with a SAW than it does with an assault rifle.

But there also needs to be a heavier LMG to do the dirty work.

Even if the new assault rifle goes to 6.8 (which it almost certainly won’t) I think there’s a strong argument to keep the SAW a 5.56. However, I don’t think any 5.56 LMG will replace the M60/M240 role. At least not effectively.

I know that the military would like to have a family of mostly-compatible weapons for the infantry, but compromises mean giving up things. I don’t think giving up too much is too good for the troops on the ground.

We might be best off with a a 6.8mm modular assault rifle with short, medium, and long barrels, a separate 5.56mm SAW, and a separate 7.62mm LMG. If the assault rifle is going to be 5.56mm (as seems likely) then the SAW could be part of that family as long as it has quick-change barrels and heavier construction.

Trying to shoehorn every role into one weapons systems might sound good in theory, but it runs the real risk of giving no one what they need to do their job.

Army opens competition for replacement of M-16, M-4

The XM8, which has basically been running unopposed to replace the M16/M4 as the infantry’s standard weapon, will have to prove itself against other candidates.

The March 4 “Pre-solicitation Notice for the Objective Individual Combat Weapon Increment I family of weapons,” invites small-arms makers to try and meet an Army requirement for a “non developmental family of weapons that are capable of firing U.S. standard M855 and M856” 5.56mm ammunition.

The family would consist of carbine, compact, designated marksman and light machinegun models.

A formal Request for Proposal is slated to be issued “on or about” March 23, the notice states.

I saw this article this morning and wanted to look into the situation more before posting. This afternoon MO regular reader BigFire linked to me in a comment on Outside the Beltway (thanks, BF). Then, this evening, another reader passed on a link to another story in Army Times from today:

Army seeks to replace its lightest machine gun: XM-8 testing suspended pending contractor competition

It’s basically a more-detailed version of yesterday’s article, but it includes

The March 4 pre-solicitation notice, posted on the Internet, means the Army’s XM-8 program will have to prove it can outperform the rest of the small-arms industry before soldiers carry it into battle.

“We have halted testing to let the competition be completed,” said Col. Michael Smith, who runs Project Manager Soldier Weapons, the Army office that has been developing the XM-8.

Smith said the decision was made to hold off on operational tests slated for October because it’s unclear if XM-8’s maker, Heckler & Koch, will emerge the winner.

This is a bummer for those following the XM8 like rabid dogs. (Hey–I resemble that remark!)

I’m curious about these developments. Everything seemed to be coming along smoothly until initial production money was cut from the defense budget at the last minute late last year. Two brigades were to have been equipped with the XM8, but that plan was delayed. It was thought that the XM8 money would show up in a supplemental, but it didn’t happen. Then a Sources Sought Notice was issued in November for a 5.56-based weapons system that sounded suspiciously like the XM8. After some initial worry, we decided that it was just a paperwork CYA despite unconfirmed rumors that the XM8 had recently suffered a significant failure in testing.

Initial comparison of the November Sources Sought Notice and this one indicate to me that they’re asking for the same thing.

What’s going on? Why issue another for the exact same thing? I’d have to think that the major players would have submitted last fall about thirty seconds after the notice was issued for a chance to take this business away from H-K. Since the notice is for a “non-developmental family of weapons” no ‘good ideas’ are going to be accepted–only working weapons ready for production.

Also in today’s Army Times article:

In addition, to the carbine, compact, designated marksman models, the Army wants the family of weapons to include a light machine-gun model that would replace the M-249 SAW.

Currently, each infantry squad contains two SAWs that serve as light support weapons because of its 5.56mm ammunition and high-rate of fire.

The Infantry Center, which is the proponent for small arms for the Army, maintains that the SAW, while very popular with soldiers, has been in service since the early 1980s and is beginning to wear out.

“A lot of our SAWs are 20 years old,” said Maj. Glen Dean, the chief of small arms at the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga. SAWs are rebuilt, he said, but often not fast enough to keep up with everyday wear and tear under combat conditions.

“You see soldiers carrying SAWs held together with the zip ties.”

I noted last September that the Army at that time said that the XM8 Automatic Rifle variant was not intended to replace the M249. That’s a good thing, as the XM8 doesn’t have quick-change barrels. Now all of a sudden they want to replace the M249 with a variant of an assault rifle family.

I’d like to point out that it was the same General Smith who said in September that the M249 was not going to be replaced now says that the M249 needs to be replaced because they’re held together with zip ties.

My guess is that there’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye.

MO will strive to keep you updated.

UPDATE: Now that I think about it, someone sent me a link to a Request For Quote this past weekend. It was for a “Visual Augmentation Kit for the M727 CQBR and M4A1 weapon systems” and came in a message with a digital signature. I meant to look into it further and didn’t. Maybe someone was trying to give me a heads up on this Sources Sought Notice and sent me the wrong one?

UPDATE 2: While digging for more info on this I came across an XM8 pic I hadn’t seen before at Defense Update.
Read the rest of this entry »

Cobb SCAR Candidate/MCR Prototype Weapons at SHOT Show 2005

I totally forgot to link to Defense Review’s awesome post on the Multi-Caliber Rifle (MCR) which was in the running at one time for the Special Operations Command’s Combat Assault Rifle. Tons of pics. Tons.

Go look.

Schumpeterian reform for the U.S. Army

We know all about the Army’s transformation into a force designed to fight tomorrow’s wars. Generally speaking, “transformation” usually means something along the lines of “faster and lighter…with digital computers”.

Some new programs, like the Stryker light armored vehicle, pinpoint on-call air support, the XM8 assault rifle, improved body armor, and the Future Combat Systems plan, effect the transformation by their implementation. Others, like the Crusader mobile artillery and the Comanche helicopter, effect the transformation by their cancellation.

Today’s war is different than the wars we planned to fight yesterday.

In addition to new gadgets and better weaponry (all of which is vital), “transformation” can take on a more mundane form. Giving the soldiers a new vehicle or a new rifle may allow them to do things in way that’s different than the previous ways of doing that thing, but it’s still basically the same thing that they’re doing. It’s good that we transform in this way, of course, but there is another form of transformation that we must not ignore.

That is the transformation of the Army into a force that does new things. Or at least old things on a new scale not previously seen or needed.

Intel Dump points out an article on army.mil that begins:

More than 100,000 Soldiers will move from “Cold War” jobs to positions such as military police and civil affairs as part of Army Transformation, Sgt. Maj. of the Army Kenneth Preston said.

This is a crucial step in the right direction. The Army’s primary job, of course, is to kill people and destroy things. But as we’re seeing in Iraq, there is more to it than that.

Between this shift to far more civil affairs and military police units and the training of non-front line soldiers in combat, this sort of transformation will make our Army not only more efficient at what they’ve always done but make it more capable to win today’s war.

One thing about transformation, though, is that change for the sake of change isn’t good. And just like today’s war is not like yesterday’s wars, tomorrow’s wars will not be like today’s war. So while I commend the Army on what it’s done so far and what it plans to do in the future, they had better be careful to not over-correct.

Never mind that tanks and heavy artillery often are handy to have while waging 4th-generation asymmetrical warfare. Sometimes you need them to fight an enemy who uses tanks and artillery instead of hand-me-down assault rifles and roadside bombs.