Laser distance air-bursting bullets? What do you think?

[Old Sweat]

I guess I am the only one in step here again, but I still have problems coming to grip with a very small round and the resulting effects at the far end. To my mind, the terminal ballistics suck.

According to one story I saw it had a max range of about 750 metres, which means getting an accurate range is very necessary, hence the laser range finder. (Facetious switch on) At the risk of getting on the Technoviking's Christmas Card list, this seems to be another case of looking for a weapon that could replace a light mortar . . . or even the AGL. (Facetious switch off) The weapon may work admirably, and I may have been out for a very long lunch, but it seems like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[a_majoor]

Max range of 750m is mostly a result of having a fast round with a flat trajectory. Anyone who ever fired an M-203 or other LV 40mm launcher knows the difficulty of aiming. The high arcing trajectory and low speed (not to mention the effects of windage) works against the grenadier.

Perhaps there are other, better solutions (shoulder launched HV grenade launcher or automatic shotgun are two current contenders), but time will tell.

 

[vonGarvin]

The solution is properly employing the weapons we have.  If you want an airburst, use the 84mm (there are airburst rounds.  I don't know if we have purchased them, but if not, we should).  So many existing weapons out there, all with wonderful capabilities, but without the skill sets, we may as well stay home.

 

[GAP]

I heard similar arguments against the M-79.....it earned its' place...

You can't easily carry around an 84mm, even a 60 is humping, but this adds flexability to even small teams....

my :2c:

 

[vonGarvin]

I heard similar arguments against the M-79.....it earned its' place...

You can't easily carry around an 84mm, even a 60 is humping, but this adds flexability to even small teams....

my :2c:

I want my money back

This thing offers no capability that already exists (though the method of shooting shit is high-tech), costs 20K/unit, and since we can't even use the shit we have now, why get this?

I've lost all faith with DLR anyway.  Hell, I'm losing faith in the whole rotten system.

 

[NSDreamer]

I want my money back

This thing offers no capability that already exists (though the method of shooting crap is high-tech), costs 20K/unit, and since we can't even use the crap we have now, why get this?

I've lost all faith with DLR anyway.  Hell, I'm losing faith in the whole rotten system.

Down Johnny, remember this is still American only, there may yet be hope!

 

[McG]

Good idea, bad idea?

Well, it is not a new idea.  Programable airbursting munitions for the direct-fire flat-trajectory weapon have been around for a while ... we've even retired a system (Skyguard) that fired such a round (AHEAD).  It was only a matter of time for the technology to trickle down to lighter soldier weapons.

What surprises me is that the technology is matured to the point where it is being fielded in rifle-like weapons and crew served grenade launchers, but it skipped being implemented in AFVs.  This is a capability that should be in our LAV cannon.


http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/tuesday/reynolds.pdf

 

[NavyShooter]

I'm at the post-coffee stage of the day (onto my 3-rd cup on the ship)

I observed an exercise this morning where a sailor didn't even know how to properly clear his rifle.  He was "mucking" with it after leaving the clearing barrel, and I noted that his hammer was cocked (mucking involved breaking the rifle open to look into the lower for some reason?) so I queried him on the state of the weapon and sent him back to the clearing barrel. 

Learning to use the tools we have already is a challenge for some folks.

I wish I could spend my days teaching folks how to use their tools better.  Techno....I'm volunteering to help....do you want me? 

As for this fancy tool, well, the video I saw of it showed some pretty brutal looking recoil (no follow-up shot without completely re-assuming your position, that's for sure)

Somewhere else I saw a photo of the electronic guts of the optic, and thought (as an electronics techie) gee.....that's a lot of stuff to get dusty/dirty/grungy.

I've mucked about with scopes fresh back from A-stan, and the powder fine dust that was in the elevation wheel was appalling.  I can only hope that they have a perfect sealing system to keep this system running.  It'll need it.

I won't speak to what sort of tactical/operational use this might have, that's outside my lane. 

NS

 

[vonGarvin]

I wish I could spend my days teaching folks how to use their tools better.  Techno....I'm volunteering to help....do you want me? 

I'd take you in a heart beat.  We need people of all stripes (eg: navy, airforce, army) to get our people into the basics before they try to be superninjawannabes.

 

[GAP]

NS...that's why the AK, M-79 Thumper, the 60mm, etc are so durable....they are designed to work in existing conditions, not bench state.....

While I like the concept, if things are so crammed/finetuned as you say, then this is probably a no go in the long term....I have no clue as to what durability testing they did on the thing...(but if you remember the intro of the M-16 and all the jamming, chroming of chamber, changing of powder to get it to work....well..........)

 

[NavyShooter]

GAP,

I've been shooting the C-7, AR-15 (and an original USAF M-16 once!) for a good number of years.

I've got a Chinese (Norinco) AK clone in my collection, along with a few other arms that have garnered my interest over the years.

The absolute brutal simplicity of the Lee Enfield rifle has always impressed me though.  The #4(T) that I picked up a couple years back still shoots to within 2 MOA of the original scope settings from 60+ years ago.  THAT is solid.  Simple, solid, and damned hard to kill.

Stepping over to using the tools, I've been on the CF Bisley team 5 times since 1996, and have seen the level of marksmanship skills transition from the point where I was the noobie, feeling like I didn't belong, to where I'm teaching and sharing what people have taught me over the years, because now, I'm one of those people that others watch and learn from.

For the folks who hear "Bisley" and think blazers, funny hats, and hoity-toity shooters, nope.  Not so much anymore.  The Brit service rifle matches have transitioned from the "old" style to a somewhat more modern set of matches.  Body Armour with plates....mandatory.  7.5Kg mandatory LBV weight (on top of the BA) Helmets, etc.  Running?  500 meters, 3 minutes, followed by a 600 yard fire with movement match on an electronic target range.  CASEVAC of 200m, followed by a 500m fire-team match.  The old belly-shooting days at Bisley are over (at least for the CF team!), and if you don't have the basics down pat, you'll have no chance at the advanced stuff.

Techno, I'd love to help.  I'd love to teach marksmanship, but because I'm an Acoustic Technician, not a Boatswain, I'm not an "Expert" in small arms....so my "help" isn't wanted.  My dream job would be to teach shooting.  I love it, and I love seeing eyes light up with delight after finally shooting a good group.  If there was a way I could do it, I'd do it in a heart-beat.

I teach anyone who comes out with the MARLANT Combat Shooting Team, as as the team rifle coach.  Years ago, I watched most of the top shooters hiding their techniques and tips, and they'd only answer your questions with the minimum....so when they retired, they took most of their knowledge and experience with them rather than sharing it.  Again this summer at CFSAC, I made up and handed out a shooting guide book with match descriptions and some basic marksmanship info in it.  I see no advantage to hiding knowledge from other shooters.  Especially when a lot of them will end up on the sharp end carrying a rifle in harms way. 

Giving those troopers the tools they need to help put the rounds where they belong is a damn fine idea.

Even with this laser airburst system, accuracy is going to be very important.

Suppose you've got a soldier who's only able to barely pass his PWT shoots.  That means he's hitting 60% of the time on figure 11/12 targets out to 300 meters.  That means that 60% of his shots are going into an 18" wide, 22" tall target at 300m (size of a Fig 12).  So basically, at 300m, he's hitting within about a 0.5m circle.  Not bad when applying HE.

If we step back to 600 meters, that group should, theoretically double to 1.0m.    Out to 750m, that's a total of 1.25m group, with 60% of his shots.

The other 40% of his shots will be beyond that, and at best, of reduced effectiveness. 

There's been nothing mentioned of the scope system correcting for windage, which is something that's not well taught or understood (based on how many people approached me to ask about at CFSAC to explain the wind chart I included in the booklet).  And these rounds will have a considerably longer time of flight than a 5.56mm round, meaning windage will have a considerably greater effect on the impact zone. 

Soldiers who carry this tool are going to need to understand windage, ballistics, and how to properly apply the marksmanship principles.

The problem I've noted is that a lot of troops don't have #1, or #2, and only a few learn #3 well enough.

I'd love to help teach...its FUN.

NS

 

[NSDreamer]

NS any time you want to teach shooting, I volunteer to take lessons! I'm one of those who 'barely' passed the pwt 

 

[NavyShooter]

What do ya want to learn?  Drop me a PM!!

 

[Old Sweat]

Re windage, this may help explain a bit about the lack of knowledge. I was in the first recruit troop in the RCA Depot to not be issued a Lee-Enfield rifle. Instead we started from day one with the FN C1. In one of the first periods of instruction it was explained to us that while calculations for windage were done with the old rifle, because of the increased velocity of the 7.62 mm bullet, it had been decided to stop the practice of calculating windage. I seem to recall we were told to aim at the left or right side of the target in the even there was a strong crosswind.

This was in early 1958.

 

[a_majoor]

My understanding of the system is the sight is day/night and laser rangefinding (allowing you to accurately lay on the target and get a much higher first round hit probability), but calculating windage or leadoff is still the job of the shooter.

Smaller, faster rounds for grenade launchers would seem to follow the general trend of small arms ammunition; 5.56 X 45 is no longer controversial and was adopted for many of the same reasons (soldiers can carry more rounds, and the flat trajectory with less allowance for leadoff, elevation and windage makes training soldiers to shoot easier as well). I believe something like this is the wave of the future, being the means to radically improve the lethality of the soldier over a conventional rifle armed soldier. Following Navyshooter's formula, an HE weapon continues to put a person inside the lethal radius of the round even out to 750m if the shooter can "just" pass the PWT.

For soldiers who are tired, frightened or stressed this might be enough to give them the edge.

Still, the concept is in the early stages of development, and there are many alternative concepts which *might* work as well or better (including much more rigorous training using current equipment), so stay tuned.

 

[vonGarvin]

I would offer that *if* we followed our own training doctrine (eg: with marskmanship), then "more rigorous training" wouldn't be required.  Besides, since we cannot follow the good training we have developed, then why bother with someone "more rigorous?"

 

[a_majoor]

Looking at the XM-25 again, it would be far more useful to me as an infantryman if it came with a bipod and large capacity magazine (or the action was reworked to make it belt fed. I'm flexible  ) Since the overall idea is to provide a weapon to suppress the enemy in more difficult situations (i.e. under cover), then making this more like a C-9 would increase its utility. The limited terminal effects due to the small round argument would be minimized by putting a burst on the target, and the flat trajectory and long range makes it useful in conventional war scenarios as well as COIN and other LIC situations.

The two elements which drive the costs so high are the sight unit and the active fuse setting mechanism, which feeds data to the round in the barrel as it is being fired. A highly simplified unit with a holographic reflex sight and point detonation fuses would provide a large percentage of the capabilities of the XM-25 at a fraction of the price, something which is also worth investigating.

This is an old idea where the technology has finally caught up, look at the SPIW program

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/spiw.htm

A completely new kind of weapon called SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) was in the process of development in the 1960s. The new SPIW was to combine the capabilities of a rifle, a controlled pattern shotgun, and a light mortar. It could be designed to fire a single medium-sized dart, a cluster of small darts, a microcaliber bullet, or a high explosive round. Many military experts predicted that the SPIW, or something like it, would become the basic infantry weapon of the future. By the end of 1969, however, the SPIW was still purely experimental, and no such weapon was available to the infantryman fighting in Vietnam.

 

[NavyShooter]

The SPIW, the greatest weapon that never was.....a very interesting read. 

I would suggest that making it into a belt-fed or Larger Cap mag system with bipod and burst fire capability would necessitate a much heavier platform in order to reduce dispersion.  Note the recoil in the videos of it being fired, the soldiers are being muscled around a LOT by it (IMO)

In order for a burst from it to be effective, the recoil would have to be much more controllable to reduce dispersion.

NS

 

[Kalatzi]

Hail technoviking!

I would offer that *if* we followed our own training doctrine (eg: with marskmanship), then "more rigorous training" wouldn't be required.  Besides, since we cannot follow the good training we have developed, then why bother with someone "more rigorous?"

Just curious, in an early post you seemd to be referring to somethinng like the old section left flanking attack on the lone rifleman ... And in those scenarios any semi bright gunman would be looking to break contact at the first chance.

Seems much simpler with this device -  fast response less need to manouvre  = less risk and ninimum collatoral damage.

Are we deplying anything like the sniper detection systesm the Americans are using?

This thing looks  like a super version of whack-a-mole?

 

[vonGarvin]

Hail technoviking!

;D  (And there was much rejoicing)

Just curious, in an early post you seemd to be referring to somethinng like the old section left flanking attack on the lone rifleman ... And in those scenarios any semi bright gunman would be looking to break contact at the first chance.

Well, the old "left flanking" is just a bit of a strawman for me to illustrate a point.  Yes, we train and assess people on that in leadership courses, but it's only a vehicle to assess leadership and tactics in a highly controlled situation.  I highly doubt that any lone rifleman seeing an enemy platoon advancing would shoot on them, let alone stick around.  But the point is that when faced with an enemy that is dug in and doesn't want to move, we already have the tools to keep them from shooting at us, and this ranges from accurate rifle fire to sustained MG fire, mortars, 25mm Chain Guns, etc. 

But given that our role as infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy, we seem to be falling under the spell of technology being the saviour to all our problems, when in fact we already have the solution: superior firepower. 

Now, I must state now that I'm not talking "Afghanistan", because, really, what does *that* mean?  Is it Kandahar 2002?  Kabul 03/04?  Op Medusa?  Framework patrolling in Zharey?

So, I would offer that irrespective of the conflict, superior firepower is achieved by superb marskmanship at all levels.  And superior firepower allows manoeuvre, which then allows we poor, bloody infantry to close with the enemy and then destroy them.  It may seem enticing to have a "magic gun" that allows us to pump rounds that blow up on command; however, a simple way around that is to have overhead cover.  So, in the end, no matter the weapon (short of nukes, perhaps), there is still a need to go root out the enemy, by grenade if necessary, followed by very close range shots to the centre of visible mass, concluded with one to the face.

A further consideration is logistics.  In fact, that is the main consideration.  If you can have one of these "wonder guns" for the same effort as 20 rifles, I'll take the 20 rifles and take the time to train them how to shoot properly.

So, as you can see, I prefer technique by effectively using technology, rahter than using techology instead of good technique.