Uh, oh.  They've been hammering away on this thing for years, and all they can get the prototype to support is 95% reliability under controlled conditions.

Trouble in River City, friends.

That's Obscuranto for bullets.  Just as "under-fulfilling your wellness potential" means you're dead.

If they're talking about a 95% reliability for the 20mm ammo, what standard constitutes reliability.  Failure to fire, failure to detonate, or failure to detonate within specific accuracy parameters?  It all sounds bad, but if they can get the 20mm working (forget about the 5.56 underneath) then they will have a weapon that any grenadier will be happy to carry (semi-auto, 6rnd mag, auto-fuzing, air/proximity burst).  If they would just create a dedicated GL with those features, you'd have one hell of an area weapon.

Replace the M16A2 with a 10 inch barreled gun?  Are they nuts, or am I missing somthing here?

If the OCIW is a bullpup, why don't they use a longer barrel?

Why have a 6x scope on a SBR?  Seems wrong to me.

The GL is a bullpup, while the rifle slung under it is actually positioned farther forward than an M16 or a G36.  If they lengthened the rifle's barrel, that sucker would be even more unwieldy than it already is.  You're right about the 10" barrel though.  I suppose it's a weapon of "last resort."

Maybe, but velocity would still cause the round to suffer wouldn't it?  This means less accurate rainbow arcs, instead of flat shooting bullets.

They do, the OCSW is a crew-served 25mm grenade launcher.  IMHO it looks like it will be a hell of a lot better than the OICW.

The OICW is supposed to use a very hot version of the 5.56 NATO that can achieve much higher velocities out of a shorter barrel. This ammo can't be used in an ordinary M-16.

technically, they said they _exceeded_ 95% reliability. maybe it was 95.0001%, maybe it was 100%.

it has the sound of a contract spec--probably they got a requirement that they had to be at least 95% reliable, and refer to that standard.

That bayonet just looks worthless

LOL ha ha ha.  "Obscuranto."  Tinker that's a winning expression  :)

While I definitely think the OICW not only looks goofy, should we count this thing out yet?  This is a pretty radical change what with the airburst ammunition, and while I don't know @#%^ about combat, it seems like the airburst could deal decisively with concealed enemies.

I also don't know how much we're dumping in the program,but I could see keeping this thing going.

I think some of the animosity against the OICW (apart from the fact that it currently sucks) stems from the perception that the designers and advocates are totally out of touch with the realities of combat, where things are supposed to fail in a disastrous way.

Would you guys feel any different if the OICW didn't have the Mini-me rifle slung underneath and the dumbass bayonet?  

This 25mm weapon is essentially a super-CAWS, with a 500m potential range.  And that's kind of cool.

I should add that I remain skeptical that a 20X70mm projectile is big enough to be consistently lethal in a variety of near miss situations.  

I don't know what to think, But if they would take that friggen computer , put it on my back and rig it to work with a M203 I would take the computer and the Airbursting Ammunition and leave the rest of that frickin peice of shit at home.

Benjamin

I have to rant some more, I don't like that gun at all.  Sure the technological future of combat arms is great.  There is something wrong with that gun!

They only fired 60 Gernades.  That is not shit statistically speaking. What happens after 2000-3000 then 4000-5000 rounds???

They need to keep the same ideas and go re-work their solution.  Has anyone noticed that the rifle is left-handed??? That is part of the problem.  Those buttons just felt wrong and now I know why.  Are you going to have time to unshoulder your weapon open the service hatch on the computer and click all those dials into there proper places????   Granted most things can be overcome with training but that thing had to weigh as much as an M60.

I just hope they know what they are doing.


Not only that but that statement is misleading Airbusting at 500 still yeilding tight patterns, NO FRIGGIN SHIT WHAT ELSE WOULD IT DO.  500 Meters doesn't mean shit, unless they are talking about repeatability saying firing a whole 6 round clip at a target 500 yards away and having all 6 rounds blow up at the same point in space.  Maybe that is what he is talking about???

Let's hear what James Sullivan had to say in Small Arms Review about the OICW.

"One frame combines two guns in one, a standard rifle and one that fires an explosive round. That explosive round is supposed to be set off by a computer device that can exactly tell range and communicate that information to the round so that it will explode next to the target, and presumably cause some damage.  So, by formalizing the requirement and giving a fortune to contractors who can keep straight faces, they think it will happen...For starters, the size and weight limitations of the shell would need an explosive that is four times more powerful than any known explosives and the shrapnel material would have to be denser than any material on this planet just to equal the effect of the 40mm M203 explosive round, which is adequate if it explodes close to the target. They have to develop the technology to make it explode where they want plus or minus a few inches.  Mortar designers have been trying to develop similar technology for 50 years but aren't there yet...The OICW will probably end up like the last boondoggle, the Advanced Combat Rifle(ACR)program.  The program was a total failure.  Cost-$100 million-and they never tested the technology that worked."

Jim Sullivan, February 2001 Small Arms Review

[IMG]http://www.duhspot.com/users/smiley/s/contrib/ut1/redeemerwhore.gif[/IMG]

I think that picture and text is from Popular Mechanics (the font looks familiar); if so that would be PM calling the mags clips.

I saw a mock-up of this thing at a recent conference I attended.  First and only lasting impression... it's bulky.  Oh well, just because it's in R&D doesn't mean it's close to being fielded.

DrMark

I'm not talking about a support weapon, I want a MANEUVER weapon for ONE SOLDIER.  Perhaps ammunition commonality with the OCSW might work, if the recoil wasn't too much.

Perfect.  A picture is worth a thousand words.

Hey...everybody take a step back for just a second and ponder this:

This weapon "system" will be used by grunts...in the bush...around the world.

The correct operation of this weapon depends on electic power.  Batteries not included???  I guess the grunts can carry a bit more weight...and they ought not to have much trouble to change them out...even in a firefight...right?

The "grenade" [grenade] launcher is controlled by SOFTWARE!  THINK ABOUT THIS POINT FOR JUST A NANOSECOND EVERYBODY!!!  Software?  Have ANY of you out there in cyberland EVER used an OS or application that NEVER crashed, never left you staring at the blue screen of death?  Or maybe it just got quirky and slowed way down...until you could go offline and debug/clean/groom it?  That may be OK for you and me at home or at the office...it don't work so well for a grunt in a hot LZ.  I don't care how much debugging they do...eventually, for whatever as-yet-to-be-discovered reason, this software will fail and something bad will happen.

Much as I like the general concept (and I really do) we just ain't there yet.  The Army ought to ditch this thing and continue long-term, limited development of the next infantry weapon.  What should that be?  Maybe this thing...but that's for another thread pull....stay tuned.

What if mud gets on the laser range finder?  The 20mm will think the target is right in front of the weapon, and explode as soon as it leaves the barrel.  Sounds like fun to me!
[grenade]

Preaching to the choir perhaps, but what is wrong with the M4 platform exactly?  It seems that all the gadgets could be modularized for the M4 and just attached and detached for mission-specific use pending reliability proof.
What about, say, SOPMOD- generation 2.  I think a "bullet-proof reliable" digital-capable optic with laser range finder, designator, video transmision capability, GPS, would be useful for one or two guys in a unit to have.  Couple that with a updated m203 40mm launcher with all the bells and whistles..  The idea is that if the gadgets work, great, if not, they can be easily ditched or refined.

I think they already have all that gear for the M4 SOPMOD.  I seem to remember a picture of two guys who had scopes on TOP and on the SIDE of their Combat Rifles.  Plus all the usual goodies, NV,HEADSETS WITH MIC, ETc.

Benjamin

Hay wait a second guys, can't you buy glasses with images projectors on them???

I have an idea.  

Couldn't you just take a camera with REAL TIME FEED, push it through some sort of filtering program and render an overlay on the transparent lenses of your glasses or Goggles???

TURN NIGHT INTO DAY, TURN NIGHT INTO IR, etc..

DAMN.  

I still say wait until the technology matures.

I'll take a well led and well trained company of grunts any day of the week, with the weapons they have now.  Guys that know how to use their arms; their mortars, grenade launchers, machine guns, their rifles...and are accurate with their hand grenades...AND are well schooled in the arts of maneuver warfare and small unit infantry tactics will take it to the enemy and win virtually every time.  They don't need to lug around crap like this beast.

There is NO substitute for good training good leadership...none.  Ask those that have gone before us.  Those of you who have seen the elephant...ask yourselves.  Will this gun be the panacea the Army is looking for to increase the infantryman's firepower (By an order of magnitude as they are claiming!) while also decreasing his chances of becoming a casualty on the battlefield?  Don't think so...

Let's play a what if game...
I'll bet anyone out there in cyberland that a company of today's young American firepissers, well trained and well led, provided only with Garands, M-1919s .30cal MGs, pineapple grenades, Thompson SMGs, M-1 carbines, .45cal 1911s, and 60mm mortars and all the other old crap, would take the measure of virtually every other equivalent sized unit in the world...with their 21st century light weight, high firepower smart rifles and other high tech stuff.

It ain't the gun...it's the man...and how he's led that counts.

[soapbox]

Gee I dunno, the Commandant of the Marine Corps said "My Marines AREN'T going to use this thing".

That good enough for me.

This technology is very interesting, and has possibilities.  Right now, it is in the impractical, goof-ball stage.

When it matures, it will be extremely cool.

I think it will become mature at the same time the govt. goes door to door enforcing its gun-ban.

So how would you guys grunt-proof this, or would you just dump it altogether?

1) two weapons or one? this thing looks like primarily a grenade launcher. so why the rifle hanging off of it? let's assume the rifle half goes away. what else does the guy carry? Pistol? It sounds as if the intent is to give the grenade shooter something besides that. on the other hand if they ditched the rifle he could carry more 20mm rounds.

2) the computer stuff. they probably need to make all that optional, and just have a contact-fused option for all thir rounds. batteries dead? the hell with it, aim with the iron sights and blaze away.

3) better or worse than the 40? the 20 gives you longer range and air bursting (at least if everything else works). the drawback is smaller bangs. it probably wouldn't do breaching well at all, but might work for defilade (a new capability that could influence tactics) if the airburst stuff works. presumably you can carry more 20. the longer range might be useless if the shooting is inside 100m.

the army propaganda at [url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm[/url] suggests one of the primary design goals was longer range. lots of people say that's not all that useful since you're unlikely to be able to see the enemy that far away. that suggests they'd have been better off with a bigger, shorter ranged round.

HK has some faqs at [url]http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/military/oicw_faq.html#Anchor-What-59125[/url]. it looks like the grenade launcher does have an iron sights and contact fuse option.

There are plenty of examples of battlefield electronics that have been hardened to be grunt proof, this is just the first time they will be deployed to every soldier (if the OICW is successful).  I personally think the gun is not only ugly, but totally unwieldy, but what do I know?  

I guess it depends on the tactical situation.  The OICW wouldn't be my first choice for CQB, even with the little carbine detached (shoulder stock???).  

The whole project just seems expensive and unnecessary given that the M4 SOPMOD already does pretty much everything the OICW does and includes no electronics (as has already been pointed out).

[i]During the OICW test firings, which took place from at ATK's test range near Minneapolis, more than 60 air-bursting rounds were successfully fired. The firings demonstrated a reliability of greater than 95 percent[/i]

They tested only _60_ rounds??? and of those, 3 failed?? and they consider the test "successful"? If _you_ tested 60 rounds of ammo and 3 rounds failed, would _you_ bet your life on it? In my realm, 200 flawlessly-fired rounds is a MINIMUM requirement - and I'm just some self-defense hobbyist! Compound the failures with the unwieldy bulk involved...a failed round requires more effort than the typical "tap-rack-bang".

Sounds like they've worked out 90% of the problems. Now they have to work out the other 90%, which will take longer than the projected delivery time.

[b]more than 60 air-bursting rounds were successfully fired. The firings demonstrated
a reliability of greater than 95 percent,[/b]

.95 * 60 = 57



What does that bad boy weigh, and how much does the supporting gear (ammo, mags, ancilary stuff) weigh that the poor SOB needs to lug around?

Lwilde:
"Let's play a what if game...
I'll bet anyone out there in cyberland that a company of today's young American firepissers, ....would take the measure of virtually every other equivalent sized unit in the world...with their 21st century light weight, high firepower smart rifles and other high tech stuff."

Generally I agree, but I got one historical precedent that points out a flaw:
Luftwaffe paratroopers on Crete.  This action proved that you can get hamstrung by weapons inadequacies.  Their 9mm submachineguns were thoroughly outranged by the Brit Enfields, and 25% of the Kraut paras died in taking the island.  

If this OICW in any lightweight relatively robust configuration offers 500m consistent KILLS faster than the enemy can respond at 200m, I am all for it.  

Fact of the matter is, an AK47 bought in exchange for a large sack of beans in Angola, is not that inferior to an M16A2.  The Army wants to open a "killability" gap.  I am all for it, unless, like Erasmus said, they start going door to door collecting our pitiful arms.  

The OICW weighs less than a comparable M-16 with M203 grenade launcher. And the 20mm round weighs half as much as a 40mm. Check out the HK FAQ for more info.

Perhaps 95% reliability means that only 5 out of 100 detonate IN the weapon.

Anyway, if they do issue this thing, perhaps it will be in combination with the powered exoskeleton:  [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=87079[/url]

It would be about the only way a grunt is going to tote the thing all day.

Ustulina,

I think the number of German fallschirmtruppen killed taking Crete can attributed to a number of factors including the range and accuracy of the British enfield rifles.  There is no doubt that the Enfield can easly outrange the MP-40, but if you check, I think you'll find that most of the paras were armed with the karabiner 98 in 7.92mm or MG-34s/42s.

I agree that having a "killing zone" is always desirable...I'm just not sure that the stated 500m of the OICW is really possible with that 20mm grenade and, is it actually that much better than a skilled grenadier with the proven 40mm launcher.

The rifle of the OICW may be even less effective than the M-16s in now in service since the weapon has a short barrel that will tend to reduce accuracy and hitting power, given the same ammo, and the soldier will forced to hump less 5.56 ammo, since he will already be burdened with the weapon and the 20mm ammo.

As to the 500m range:  I regularly shoot in matches where one of the (man-like) target presentations is at 500m.  I can't even SEE the damn target with the naked eye well enough to engage it with my AR...which is why I mounted a Trijicon compact ACOG (3x24).  At least now I can see it...but...whether or not I actually hit it is another story.  I usually miss.  In fact...the only person who fairly regularly gets it is my son with his Garand.

I know Marines are trained to shoot past 500m, but I'll bet they are also taught that most infantry combat takes place within about 250m and about 90% of that takes place within 100m.  That is the reason so many of these hot new gunsights like the ACOGs that are optimized for 240m on in are being snapped up by the troops deploying overseas.

WRT the relative values of the AR and the AK:  My son owns a stock AK.  I own an AR with a few mods done to it.  The AR is light years ahead of the AK in almost every category, except one:  combat reliability.  I hate to say it, but in a CQB eyeball-to-eyeball gunfight I would bet my life on the AK first.  I love my AR...and I know her indiosyncracies...but she is somewhat finicky.  Mess with her and she won't always work every time.  I suspect (Now THIS is gonna draw fire!) that few of us devout AR owners have gone a long shooting day without at least one FTF, a jam, a double-feed, a mag that won't seat...something.  I gotta tell you...that damn ugly commie gun never fails.  It never quits.  It always shoots, no matter what shape its in.  It isn't nearly as accurate as the AR but it is utterly reliable.  Sgt. Kalashnikov was a genius.

As to the validity of the test of 60 shots:  Statistically speaking that number is relatively insignificant.  A much larger sample is required to accurately asses the overall effectiveness.  Typically 1000 tries would be far more of an accurate test.  Also, if I'm using that weapon, I want it to work correctly more than 95% of the time.  That's 50 failures out of 1000 rounds fired.  Even my AR does better than that.  I suspect all infantry weapons are far closer to +99% reliable.

FWIW, I used to carry as much M-16 ammo as possible, usually at least 200 rds, plus as many grenades and other junk as I thought I could hump in a day.  I just can't imagine hauling that OICW thing around and it improving my firepower and decreasing my chances of getting whacked.

I still say ditch it...at least for now.

[argue]

You'll get no arguement from me re: current fieldability!  I would never dream of carrying that thing into combat, but it doesn't look like it's that far from being a useful item. I say that it's worth developing and after improvement and testing and testing then maybe some limited combat trials on a volunteer basis.  If it has the capability that troops ask for it and continue to ask for it, then maybe it's a winner.