mrming said,
Is it feasible to expect to take a multipound unit including a balistics computer, reduce it to a few ounces, attach it to a rifle and expect it to work well?
Ever hear of a program called
Land Warrior? We're not there yet, but we're getting there. The processing capability to figure trajectory of a bullet going out to 300 meters is much less then computing the trajectory of a 120mm SABOT roind out to 3000 meters from a platform that's moving 25 mph. The sight I envision is well within our current technology.
People are hard to spot eletronicly. Small body heat which can be masked, no set optical/radar/etc profile.
Ever looked through the ISU of an M2 Bradley? Yes, you can mask body heat with something as simple as a sheet of acetate. But once you move all bets are off.
Equip everyone with a flashlight (laser, in this case) on their rifles, don't spend the training time on traditional iron marksmenship (why should we?
We already do. Ever hear of AN/PAC-4Cs, AN/PEQ-2s and 5? Most troops have the M68 CCO (Aimpoint Comp M in civilian terms). I don't think we'll ever stop spending training time on traditional iron sight marksmanship, because you still have to have a foundation in the basics. But better aiming devices are where we're going. Barring a breakthrough in ammunition technology, it's where all the near term improvements are coming from. The XM8 all the HundKphobes are promoting has very rudimentary iron sights and a proprietary sight that is totally unacceptable for military use. Even the German soldiers who have it on their G36s complain about it.
They've got a fancy set of optics now! Or are you saying we'll train in both, so the solider now has an additional skillset they have to stay up to speed with?)
That is exactly what we are doing now. One of the missions of the small arms master marksmen programs in the light divisions is to provide subject matter experts in use of all the new aiming devices we already have in the system. Units routinely qualify with both iron sights and their M68 CCOs. As a matter of fact they even qual with both in Infantry OSUT now.
What, make it pulsed so you only send out a signal when aiming? But then you don't have the data to figure out inertia to lead. Do you really want to wait that half second for the computer to come up with a target leading solution, or just pull the trigger and walk the fire into them? How is this sighting technology going to be a signficant improvement?
We already do this with the infrared laser aiming lights in the system. A half second to wait for a processor to work is not bad at all. How long do you think the engagement sequence is now with iron sights? Soldier aquires the target, IDs it as hostile, estimates range, aims, lining up both front and rear sights, presses trigger. Probably takes anywhere from a second and a half to 3 seconds depending on the skill of the shooter.
Range estimation is the phase where the most errors occur. If we ranged the target as well as illuminated it with our laser, we could eliminate this error. Imagine a combat sight that was slaved to to the laser aimer we use to engage in the dark. Soldier sees the target through either his AN/PVS14 at night or his day combat optic. Illuminates it with the laser. The laser gives the CPU the range and the CPU computes the right angle to hold the weapon to make the hit, turning the reticule red/green (color really doesn't matter). The reticule could be in his day sight mounted on the weapon or in the eyepiece of his helmet mounted NOD. This is a significant improvement over what we have. The technology exists to make this a reality now.
Of what benifit is this in a urban enviroment? At under a hundred yards? 200? Even if a method to indentify humans based on a limited sensor (laser, whatever) is devised, people don't have the intertia of a vechile. Duck, jump, dodge, side step all are possible and non-predictable events. It'll be possible to fool the leading retiticle, and it'll take a large fraction of a second to generate.
It's still going to be faster in a urban environment. Put the entire thing into a thermal sight and you've taken a lot of concealment from the enemy. We haven't quite gotten to where thermal rifle sights are small and light enough to be practical yet, but we will. Look at the difference between the AN/PVS2 of Vietnam days and the current AN/PVS14.
Ok, say we drop the leading functionality. Lets just do a hold over. line up on target, send out one pulse to get range.. imbed sensors to pickup on humidity, air pressure, wind speed, munitions type and generate a hold-over reticle. That could be useful, but only at range. If someone wants to try it out, we don't need a new rifle for it... just pull the carry handle off a A4 and attach.
We don't need humidty, air pressure or wind speed to engage at 300 meters and closer. All we need is the range to the target. There are online ballistic computers that will figure out the holdover needed for the ammunition we use. Like I said earlier, we're shooting from point blank range out to no more then about 500 meters if we stay with 5.56x45 ammo. And that you for making my point. We don't need a new rifle to do this. In fact adoption of the XM8 will undoubtedly suck up the funding we need to develop the sight unit. So we get less capability for more money
.
I doubt we are talking about anything revolutionary, as it'd have to be tuned to each individual rifle and munition combination, and it won't be capable of reading wind anywhere except at the point of the sight.. Traditional marksmenship should be able to win out.
No we're not talking about anything revolutionary. You wouldn't need to program the system for each individual rifle/ammunition combo. With the current 4MOA standard for mechanical accuracy (most rack grade M16s shoot 2MOA or better) a software package that covered M855 out of both a 20" and 14.5" barrel will be sufficient for what we want to do. Traditional marksmanship isn't winning out. Range scores show that soldiers equipped with the current optical systems prove their value.
When is the last time we fought against a foe who valued their infantry? Were the bulk of the army wasn't forced conscripts, or even had a home grown electronics industry of their own? I'm not worried about the brush wars, the police actions, or the occasional dictator with cold war left overs. I'm worried about the guy who shows up capable of defeating the electronic gizmo's leaving the USGI with a compass, iron sights and his feet. God forbid any consideration be given to the day that someone brings a working EMP bomb to the party.
This is always a consideration. Which is why we still need backup iron sights. and the training to use them. Warfare in the electronic spectrum is something we have to deal with. Should we not pursue anything in these areas? We seem to have neutralized the Russian made GPS jammers the Iraqis fielded during the recent war. I think it's folly not to pursue these advances because there may be countermeasures used against them. There are always countermeasures. That's what it's all about. The trick is to train soldiers well enough that they can function without all the HSLD stuff.
Badger Arms said;
Okay, maybe I should be more specific. Knights patented their rail system which involves a removeable lower portion so that the M-203 grenade launcher can be attached to the barrel. Since special forces want that option, they can only get it from Knights.
Again not true. The A.R.M.S. SIR will accept the M203. It even has an NSN. It's been in the hands of our troops for a long time. Again I ask, what is the difference between Kinights and HK when it comes to proprietary parts, except that Knights is an American company and HK is a German company?
Let's say the Army is disappointed in their magazines becasue the Aluminum ones are flimsy and cause jams because of some weird half-curved, half-straight idea. Well, all they'd have to do is change out the mag wells and there they have it, they can now fit a fully-curved 30-rounder to each gun out there. We went through this VERY early in the development of the AR-15 but because it (and pretty much everything at that time) wasn't modular, no dice. So we were stuck with the fully curved magazine and compromise green followers to band-aid a design flaw. Sure, the brick flies most of the time... wait, I said that before!
So is this capability worth the cost? You answered your own question. We already issue reliable magazines. In fact your buddies at Oberndorf already make them ...Of course 13 thousand of them that were sold to one of our elite units had to be sent back due to serious quality control problems. ...ohhh I thought if it came from Oberndorf it was infallible, you mean they do make mistakes like any other manufacturer?
The problem is, we won't be able to use the darned thing because the M-16 won't adapt to it.
And you know this how? Have you seen what's being done to replace the XM29? No you haven't. No one here has. I do know that they are currently looking at a stand alone grenade launcher and developing munitions for it the grenadiier can use up close, eliminating the need for a dual weapon.
Part of the philosophy of the XM-8 is that it's lighter and has the potential to shed even more weight as the system matures. That will allow it to integrate with the automatic grenade launcher that IS THE NEXT BIG THING when it, too, sees results from its diet and exercise program.
Badger, repeat after me....
The XM29 is dead... Now once again,
The XM29 is dead...again...
The XM29 is dead. Ok now that we've established that
FACT we can continue the discussion. No one knows what the follow on to the XM29 will look like. I do know for a fact that they are looking at a
STAND ALONE system. Given that they are starting over with the entire program...what guarantee can you give me that the XM29 will be compatible with the new grenade launcher?
Every penny we spend on the XM29 will be a penny that isn't available to develop the new grenade launcher. The XM8 didn't exist till the XM29 was killed. There is no need for it now.
Andrew, Jeff, that's also the reason why we get an anemic 12" barrel. When it comes time to attach the XM-8 to a grenade launcher, I don't want that long of a barrel on what becomes a secondary system to the primary weapon. I'll also want the other guys in the squad to be using 20" barreled rifles of the same design to support me.
The reason we had to have the anemic 12.5" barrel was because of the XM29. Guess what,
The XM29 is dead. The 12.5" barrel was one of the big reasons rank and file grunts didn't want the XM29. You limit the grenadiers range with his rifle to under 100 meters where the M855 round is at it's best. In fact according to HK own brochure on the XM8, it leaves the barrel at 45 fps above the minimum threshold for fragmentation. I don't have a ballistic calculator, but I would imagine that it will drop below 2500 fps (which is the minimum velocity for fragmentation, it's only reliable above 2700 fps which the 12.5" barrel
NEVER gives us) between 50 and 70 meters from the muzzle. I don't know how much personal experience you have with grenade launchers, but you can't use them though any kind of foilage because of the speed the grenade flies. So we either develop a a close in grenade or give the grenadier a usable rifle. While we're on muzzle velocity, the piston/op rod system that you're so in love with allows a muzzle velocity 2850 fps with the 20" barrel vs. 3100 fps with the 20" M16A2/A4. So we have less range where M855 is at it's optimum velocity with both versions of the XM8. I don't see how this is a good thing. Why would we deliberatly give our soldier a weapon that had less effective terminal effects?
Even if the other members of the squad had 20" XM8s, they wouldn't have as effective weapons as we do now. I'd be interested to know why you want my son who's in B-1-29th Infantry right now to carry a less effective rifle into combat?
Had the grenade laucher and sight on the XM-29 had passed the test, would we be having this argument? Well, it didn't but it's descendants will someday. Either jump on the bandwagon or get out of the way.
Have you seen the reports on why the XM29 was scrapped? Are you sure that the XM8 part passed with flying colors? I'm not.
Far from jumping on the bandwagon, I am doing everything I can to derail the XM8 train before we are saddled with an expensive, unproven rifle that does nothing better then the ones we have and many things worse....
Jeff