[natedog]

What do you think about the up-and coming OICW? Do you think it will be a big electronic piece of expensive junk, or something that strikes fear into the heart of our enemies? I think it looks pretty good, except for a few things....

* It's too expensive. Current estimates right now are $10,000 per unit. These would be distributed 4 to a squad.

* To heavy, weighs over 12 LB

* Barrel length- only 10.5 inches! We're having trouble killing with a 14.5 inch barrel, and they want to shrink it again.

* Batteries- The hole system revolves around batteries. When the batteries fail, so does the fire control system. What are the troops probably going to do when the batteries fail and they have 6 pounds of dead weight? Through the it out. The fire control system is about $8,500.

Thats about all I can think of.

[Nightcrawler]

I think it's a joke.

The thing is bulkier than a SAW. I don't care so much that it weighs 12lbs, because my SAW weighs 20 when loaded, and I'm expected to keep up on the marches.

The "carbine" part is also a joke. It can detach from the grenade launcher, but doing so renders the launcher inoperable. Also, note that the detached rifle part lacks either iron sights (as near as I can tell) or a buttstock. Plus, a 10" 5.56mm is little better than a submachine gun.

Cost...yeah, it costs a LOT of money. Money I think would be better spent on range time and combat training for the troops. (Of course, I said the same thing when they bought us those fuzzy black berets).

What I think they should do, is dump the carbine bit and make a stand-alone grenade launcher. Give the grenadier a pistol to defend himself with, and reduce the weight of that weapon by removing the rifle part.

[cslinger]

I think Mr. Murphy is just grinnin' and waiting for us to field this one. It is a veritable clusterf.....well you get the point waiting to happen.

Heavy, computerized, bulky....at least in it's current format I cannot see this as a good thing. Just wait until that 10,000 dollar piece of equipment gets slogged through the mud and dropped out of a helicopter. It'll make all us AK vs AR guys come together as one.

Chris

[BigG]

Joke. :rolleyes:

[Sactown]

Way to bulky looking. They need to make the electronics smaller and lighter. I don't know how long battery life is, but that could be a problem.

[Griff]

Maybe something good will trickle down from it later on, like tech or tactics, but I don't see much use for the current piece in the snow, sand, and mud.

[762x51]

Do we really even need to answer that question? Just look at it. :rolleyes:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw4.jpg

[ctdonath]

At long range, you're stuck with this lousy 10" pistol attached to a massive grenade launcher. If you run out of grenades, you're not gonna reliably hit anything out there with the .223.

At short range, you've got this massive useless grenade launcher stuck to your 10"-barrel rifle. That's CQB with an extra 8-10 pounds you have to swing around with more speed and finesse than your opponent.

If the battery goes, that big heavy grenade launcher becomes a 10-pound stock for a 10"-barrel rifle. Try to take off the launcher, and you've got a 10" pistol.

The OICW just doesn't do anything well. Even blew up a couple testers when the "smart" grenade decided to detonate immediately upon leaving the barrel.

FN addressed the same problem and came up with a much more palatable solution: the FN2000. The launcher is a removable accessory to a compact rifle. Highly configurable, ergonomically superior, electronics are useful without being too complex when on or useless when off.

[ctdonath]

FN2000:

http://www.gunaction.com/images/assau/FN2000%20parts.jpg

[DMK]

Over
Ingineered
Crappy
Weapon

[Coronach]

I like the concept of having a grenade launcher that can reliably airburst grenades over cover. That is a SIGNIFICANT development. You laze a site to find the range and PLOOP.... .... .... BOOM. Dead enemies.

However, the 5.56 carbine attachment is a sick joke.

It looks like it could be more ergonomic and less bulky if it was designed as a grenade launcher only.

It costs too much.

I'm concerned about its durability and endurance.

I'm not impressed with this iteration, but this is based solely upon listening to the comments of soldiers and THR-types. I'm not a soldier and I've never seen an OICW first-hand.

However, I think its capabilities are impressive. Assuming, it works like they say it does. I think the next-step down this line could be very impressive.

MIke

[Art Eatman]

Maybe it's just old age, but I'm really emotionally attached to the KISS principle. This thing seems to be a real package of violations thereof.

Aside from the complexity and need for so many different parts to be reliable all the time, the weight brings in a fatigue factor. Then, sturdiness is also a question: Guys stumble and fall; what will "casual" impact on a rock or in a puddle of mud do to it?

This looks more like a Lab Animal than something to which I'd entrust my life in combat.

Art

[Glockster35]

Three years ago I was guaranteed by a Chief Master Sergeant "In the know", that by 2007, the Air Force Security Forces would receive their first OICW's. I surely didn't believe him, but thought if it happened it would be cool to play with them before I retire.

Here we sit three years later and they are talking about finally getting us M-4's. We probably won't see the OICW in any real use for many years to come.

[JShirley]

Heavy (not that I care personally)
Bulky
Expensive
Complex(=will break)

John

[JShirley]

...and, oh yeah, perhaps most importantly of all, keeping it fed will be hell

[Monte Harrison]

Is there anyone who DOESN'T think this is an extremely overpriced piece of political pork guaranteed to fail in the field? The money would be much better spent on TRAINING, rather than try to find technological substitutes for training.

[ctdonath]

One arguably positive side:
It is an attempt at moving forward. It adds official legitimacy to switching to something else. It may be a $10,000 POS...but that opens the door to someone else building good for $2000 that might catch on. People look at the OICW and retch, but then they're looking for rifle/launcher/tech combinations and are more favorable to (say) the FN2000. The 20mm/.223 combo is pretty lame, but now we have a distance-detonated 20mm that could be reconfigured into a good stand-alone unit. The horror of battery failure under critical conditions may lead to a superior long-term power source.

In itself, it sucks. Opening the door to other solutions, and paying for research into the next big thing, is probably good.

[Onslaught]

The OCSW is a great idea... It allows greater firepower from a smaller package.

But the OICW thing... :rolleyes:

I think the airburst munitions are an incredible tool, but I also agree that it should be a single unit... Grenade launcher only. Every mag for that ridiculous 10" 5.56 you carry is another mag of 20mm you could carry. Let the OICW man field a pistol as a last-ditch backup...

What do the 40mm grenadiers do now? Aside from the M203 that is.

[ShaiVong]

Arnie S. Could make it work. Hell, he could take Iraq while firing that thing from the hip!

Im of the same thought about the 'nade. Automatic airbursts kick @$$. Get rid of the .223 and give the grenadier a Glock, or 1911, or 92F, or a pointy stick or whatever.

Ever play Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon? One of the specialists in that has a OICW, the 'nade launcher kicks in the game atleast :p

[starfuryzeta]

Well, it is being written that instead of standard pistol sidearms, militarys are looking into small SMGs, like the new MP7. That, with a dedicated 20mm air-burst launcher would be good in combined arms support.

[ShaiVong]

Yeah i would agree with that. Give me a MP5/UMP over a pistol any day.

[JShirley]

I like the idea of a single, specialty stand-alone unit for support and sniper use. Give one of the SAW gunners a 20mm instead.

[swingset]

$10k per gun? That's not bad!

Heck, I think a 40watt Plasma Rifle goes for at least $11k! :evil:

Anyway, it's a retarded idea, through and thru. It's what happens when some Steve Jobs type starts throwing technology at a problem that doesn't demand it.

At least it's not see-thru.:rolleyes:

[Dave R]

Worring about keeping batteries supplied...folks in the Civil War worried about keeping percussion caps supplied. Later they worried about keeping cartridges supplies. Our supply system can handle batteries. Laser rangefinders and target designators, and GPS systems, have all proved that electronic systems can survive in the field.

I'm a big fan of the 20mm with airburst capability.

I think attaching the 10" .223 to it is the problem. My understanding is its only there as a self-defense weapon for the OICW carrier. I say give him a .45, take the rifle off that thing and make it a much lighter single-purpose 20mm shoulder-fired weapon with airburst capability. Kinda like the 40mm guys in Vietnam. Except with a LOT more range, AP capability, and versatility.

[Dave Markowitz]

The only thing missing from the OICW is "REMF" written in big white letter along the side.

[parabellum9x19]

OICW in its current form will be problematic but another couple of models later and it can be deadly. Electronics are keep getting smaller these days. The lenth of the rifle can be increased. Weapons will evolve to be deadlier and deadlier.

[Art Eatman]

Pb9x19, you may well be right about the evolvement of the critter into a better deal. The problem is the "right now" notion that it's ready to go to war in an "as is" condition. Hopefully, that's just the media "Oh, wow!" ignorance...

Art

[MarineTech]

My personal feeling is that the OICW is an interesting concept, but is too overcomplicated to survive in a battlefied enviroment.

The range fused 20mm concept shows some real promise, but not as implemented on the OICW. Instead, a more viable implementation may be as a crew served support weapon. Create a vehicle/tripod mounted full auto version similar to the MK19 and distribute it the same way you would an M2HB or Mk19 and then you've got something.

[Andrew Wyatt]

I think the airburst grenade concept is a good one. it can be adapted to the current weapon system with no problem, i think.



it would be a three piece system, which would mount on the RIS rails in the M4 and m-16a3.


group 1 would be the launcher. it'd probably be a 40mm, since we have that and that has more payload. something like the AG36 would be preferable, since it doesn't touch the barrel. if done right, it could even be a magazine fed pump.


group2 would be the scope, which would be an ACOG TA01-NSN with an LCD screen in it(the LCD should be invisible when powered off)

group 3 would be a laser rangefinder/Bullet drop compensating computer/fuse setter that mounts on one of the forend rails, and a cable with a four button touchpad that mounts somewhere on the reciever.

one button will be to select which round you'll shoot (it'll toggle between each type, either .223 or grenade)

one button will be to start/stop lasing the target (the computer will give feedback as to range either by a digital readout or a little slidey aiming bar in the scope.)


the other two buttons will adjust the range the shooter wants the grenade to burst either forwards or back in some suitably small increment.

a system like this could be as light as four pounds, not take up too much real estate on the weapon, and not be battery dependent.

[Gewehr98]

The KISS principle, don't it? :(