[Dilmah G]

IT IS already being called the most lethal infantry gun ever, capable of hitting an enemy with the help of a laser range-finder even if the target is hiding behind a thick wall.

Now the XM25 weapon, which can launch grenades over a distance of 700m, bursting with pinpoint accuracy over the heads of an enemy, has been deployed to Afghanistan to test its capability against the Taliban.

The "smart" grenade-launcher is no bigger than an ordinary rifle and is simple to fire. The technology is so advanced that a soldier will only have to know roughly where he is supposed to be aiming the sights, and then leave the rest to the gun.

The weapon assesses the range to the target and makes a calculation about the precise grid reference for the fusing to detonate the grenades in the air.

"You get behind something when someone is shooting at you, and that sort of cover has protected people for thousands of years. Now we're taking that away from the enemy forever," said Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Lehner, the Pentagon project manager for the XM25 weapon system.

The XM25 has been under development for a decade and is claimed to be 300 times more effective than current infantry weapons.

Colonel Lehner said that the weapon, which has been described as a "game-changer" in Afghanistan and the Taliban's worst nightmare, has been deployed with special units in the south and east of the country for more than a week. "It's been actively on patrols and in various combat outposts in areas that are hot," he said.

The programmable supergun fires 25mm air-bursting shells which have embedded microchips to guide the rounds to the target. "This is the first time we're putting smart technology into the hands of the individual soldier," Colonel Lehner said.

Provided the tests prove that the XM25 can do what it says on the manufacturer's label, the Pentagon plans to buy about 12,500, at a cost of up to $US30,000 each. The semi-automatic, shoulder-fired weapon, called a "counter-defilade target-engagement system", has been developed by Heckler & Koch and the American company Alliant Techsystems.

Despite the cost, Richard Jones, the editor of Jane's Infantry Weapons, said that the alternatives used currently in Afghanistan were far more expensive.

"If you can hit a target with two air-burst grenade rounds from an XM25 you won't have to expend huge amounts of ammunition from small arms or call in an A10 [tank-busting ground-attack aircraft]," he said.

Current grenade-launchers, including the British version attached under the barrel of an SA80 rifle, require the soldier to make a number of estimates before firing, in the hope that the munitions will land near the target.

With the XM25, if an enemy fighter pops his head up from behind a wall, shoots and then ducks back, an XM25 infantryman will be able to still target him. "This is turning soldiers with average shooting skills into those with phenomenal shooting skills," Colonel Lehner said.

I'm interested to see if this will have as much an effect as they say it will. Who knows, maybe it'll break when you drop it in the sand.

That casing looks pretty sweet, though.

[General Battuta]

Still 5mm tooooo smaaaaall.

[MR_T3D]

It sounds like a weapon that will be able to no suppress the enemy, but instead actually hurt them.
sounds great, but i'd fret collateral damage
in terms of looks, it looks like a big, black, toy gun, and not the most ergonomically well designed.

[Qent]

Isn't this the grenade launcher component of the XM-somthing that got split into this and the XM8 Modular Light Machine Sniper Assault SMG Rifle Gun and the XM8 was scrapped because it was a waste of money?

Superguns are awesome. I don't think this will go anywhere.

[Thaeris]

Personally, if you're going for "badass," I'd want to see something along the lines of a bullpup SLR, a rifle noted for its power and accuracy. This strikes me as a squad support weapon, where you'd need standard riflemen to back up the heavy weapons personnel who'd be toting these weapons. Furthermore, you'd assumably need to issue sidearms to anyone employing these weapons as they might be quite hazardous in very close range combat situations. Though you might be using less ammuntion, your ammunition is also going to be heavier and bulkier - and if you're carrying a sidearm, your normal ammunition supply has a separate contender to throw into consideration. Also, the ammunition is bound to be more expensive regardless, so "saving money" is more likely than not going to be a myth with this thing.

Looking at the numbers, it also makes sense that this would be a support weapon - 12,500 is not a lot given the size of the US Army and Marines. All we're doing here is just reverting to the more specialized squad orgainizations seen during WWII, etc., rather than the seemingly homogenous "assault rifle" squads of late.

[General Battuta]

Also, the ammunition is bound to be more expensive regardless, so "saving money" is more likely than not going to be a myth with this thing.

lol, no

Read. You should be comparing this ordnance to the ordnance it's meant to replace: bomb, missile, and gunfire support from air and artillery assets. Not rifle bullets.

In fact just about everything you brought up is addressed in the actual material about this weapon.

[Thaeris]

Also, the ammunition is bound to be more expensive regardless, so "saving money" is more likely than not going to be a myth with this thing.

lol, no

Read.

[snip] I'm not referring to close air support, fire support bases, or any of the various external support aids that are available to infantry squads. I'm speaking of the weapon's munitions themselves, which considering the fact that they're 25mm smart grenades, will not be what you'd call inexpensive. Considering combat situations, advertised weapon effectiveness and actual weapon effectiveness often do not match up. With that in mind, this will by and far be a more expensive weapon to operate in the field than your average weapon. Does it have the potential to be truly useful? Of course. Cheap to operate? Hell. No.

[General Battuta]

Also, the ammunition is bound to be more expensive regardless, so "saving money" is more likely than not going to be a myth with this thing.

lol, no

Read.

[snip] I'm not referring to close air support, fire support bases, or any of the various external support aids that are available to infantry squads. I'm speaking of the weapon's munitions themselves, which considering the fact that they're 25mm smart grenades, will not be what you'd call inexpensive. Considering combat situations, advertised weapon effectiveness and actual weapon effectiveness often do not match up. With that in mind, this will by and far be a more expensive weapon to operate in the field than your average weapon. Does it have the potential to be truly useful? Of course. Cheap to operate? Hell. No.

Already addressed in the post directly above yours. If you can't refrain from ad hominems your posts will be removed.

Compare the weapon to the weapons it is meant to replace. Suggesting that it's more expensive than tampons to plug up bullet wounds is irrelevant because it's not meant to replace tampons in the role of plugging bullet wounds. Similarly comparing it to rifle rounds is ridiculous. It's an attempt to move the defilade engagement solution into the infantry squad.

Any contribution to a thread that fails to explicitly note information relevant to it, like here, straight from the first post:

Despite the cost, Richard Jones, the editor of Jane's Infantry Weapons, said that the alternatives used currently in Afghanistan were far more expensive.

"If you can hit a target with two air-burst grenade rounds from an XM25 you won't have to expend huge amounts of ammunition from small arms or call in an A10 [tank-busting ground-attack aircraft]," he said.

needs to be recalibrated.

On that note if you do have any form of comprehension consideration, which many of my friends IRL do, please let me know so I can go easier on you. This seems to be a pattern.

[SpardaSon21]

Is this cheap?  No.  Will it be cheaper than artillery barrages and A-10 strikes?  Yes.

[General Battuta]

Is this cheap?  No.  Will it be cheaper than artillery barrages and A-10 strikes?  Yes.

Precisely.

[Hades]

Isn't this the grenade launcher component of the XM-somthing that got split into this and the XM8 Modular Light Machine Sniper Assault SMG Rifle Gun and the XM8 was scrapped because it was a waste of money?

Superguns are awesome. I don't think this will go anywhere.

Actually, the XM8 wasn't a waste of money, it was extremely modular, lightweight (even lighter than an M-16) and had far less stoppages than the M-16. It, however, had internal issues with the plastics melting due to overuse of the weapon, which could have likely been fixed but the project was canceled.

[IronBeer]

Boltguns on the horizon, mayhaps?

[General Battuta]

*complaints about post alteration*

If you take the time to make sure you know what a thread's about, and show that you've put in the effort to read what's happened in it so far, I can guarantee that not only will nobody be forced to clean up your posts to prevent another worthless derail, but the situations will never arise in the first place.

I'd rather snip a kneejerk ad hom to prevent another escalation than have to splitlock a thread tomorrow.

[SpardaSon21]

Boltguns on the horizon, mayhaps?

Well, we are getting closer to working power armor, so maybe.   If any power armor we deploy lets the wearers fire a .50cal assault rifle or carbine, they'll be able to fire HE rounds from that and there's your bolter.

[Nuke]

make it a gatling gun, and make mini-nuke-rounds

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Ever see the one that has multiple munitions types in the size of about a 10guage shell?  This might even be the next generation of that weapon.  It could fire flares, AP rounds, regular buckshot, door busters, and frag rounds.  The only thing it didn't have was the laser distance.

Now I've seen one that was bigger, did have the laser distance and was mounted on a robot, and could work in squads.  

Makes you wonder if they are fielding this and have released test video of the above what they really have waiting to be deployed.  I think as the civilian sector continues to improve batteries for everyday use stuff like this is going to be much more common, have far better capabilities, and be only limited by the reaction time and intelligence of the user who may not even need to be in the combat area. 

[General Battuta]

Wasn't that the AA-12? I believe that's a distinct project without current military backing (or at least not to this degree.)

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Dang it don't post when I'm editing


Could very well be a different army even.  A lot of this stuff is part of the land warrior program.

Also while some of it is designed for standard infantry other are designed for special ops needs. 

[Qent]

Isn't this the grenade launcher component of the XM-somthing that got split into this and the XM8 Modular Light Machine Sniper Assault SMG Rifle Gun and the XM8 was scrapped because it was a waste of money?

Superguns are awesome. I don't think this will go anywhere.

Actually, the XM8 wasn't a waste of money, it was extremely modular, lightweight (even lighter than an M-16) and had far less stoppages than the M-16. It, however, had internal issues with the plastics melting due to overuse of the weapon, which could have likely been fixed but the project was canceled.

Oh I hadn't heard that one before. I was rooting for the XM8, but I have to be skeptical of any weapon that claims to fill that many roles. Myrmidon lol.

[Kolgena]

Considering how sexy the XM-8 looked, the XM25 really does look spectacularly fugly.

I wonder how this gun is going to revolutionize modern FPSes.