AICW - Advanced Infantry Combat Weapon (Australia)

[1rankman]

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as72-e.htm
have you guys seen or heard about australia making it own weapons

[icehollowpoint]

Lol is it just me or have threads I've already made ages ago seem to be re popping up again?

EDIT: Just so my post isn't seen as a useless reply, that information on world guns is quite outdated. Working field models have been through the testing phase last I heard and IIRC they're looking at a possible 2010-2012 deployment of it.

Australian firearm designs have been around before - not in any great number - still, the old Owen SMG is one example.

[Bammo]

Yep - that data is nearly a decade old now. The US DARPA invested heavily in Metal Storm and intel about their products has subsequently gone very, very qwiet (esp after the Chinese Gov tried to buy MS 2 years ago).

Lot's of interesting projects in this area going on but cannot discuss them on this forum. Look up Project Land 125 to see some of the publicly released info.

Bammo

[Aresnik]

Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt + Metal Storm patented stacked-projectile caseless
Overall length: 738 mm

Yeah! I got shares in metalstorm...buy more. :)

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Looks heavy and uncomfortable to fire. How would you fire it from prone while keeping if off the ground? It also looks like with the GL on it you would have to hold your head very high from prone to aim, I would rather keep my head lower. Lastly, hand to hand is far from over. I don't think I see a bayonette lug? Can you imagine trying to parry another rifle with that or reversing it and butt stroking someone?

Interesting concept I suppose but on last look I notice where the ejection port is. Spent casings in your face when fired from the left shoulder, sure not a problem if you're right handed and buildings/cover are always on your left side.

At least it's short if you like short which is handy in an APC.

Weigth: 6.48 kg unloaded, w/o sight; 7.85 kg loaded w/o sight (30 5.56mm + 3 40mm rounds); 9.9-9.9 kg loaded w. electronic sight

Good god that is a over a 14 pound rifle dry and 22 lbs fully loaded. A WW2 era wooded rifle is half the loaded weight from memory. My old Anchutz target rifle was 12lbs and was heavy on purpose to be accurate and was the heaviest rifle I have fired. This think unloaded and no sight is 2 pounds heavier. Enjoy copping that on a forced march.

The heaviest Enfield is the Mk1 according to that website which is quite accurate brings it in at 4.19 kg a Garrand at 4.32kg.

Browning Automatic is around 8kg and a 249 around 7.1.

As you can see that rifle is stupid heavy and for barely any gain over an M-16 or Steyr and over twice the loaded weight. Seems like a lot of money pissed down the drain for an upgrade that is not even really needed.

What we need is a working one of these.

http://www.studiocreations. com/howto/blasterrifle/main.html

[Wokeye]

reversing it and butt stroking...ejection port... Spent casings in your face ...at least it's short if you like short....ewwwwwwww teee heeee

(hey, you don't get to 1,000 posts by posting new stuff!)

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Lol

<3 spam

Plate, given your experience what do you think of that rifle?

[Captain_Wolf]

In short I think it is useless the entire gun is just based around the grenade system, no one needs to be able to fire that many grenades that fast in the field. The GLA modification system avaliable for todays rifles does a perfect job. If you need more fire power look at a SRAW or LAT weapon.

The long version:

Metal strom is only really useful when employed on a large scale and where in field re-arm is not required/feasible. Eg. A Tank or aircraft. In order to replace rounds in a metal storm system you need to replace the entire barrel as opposed to a simple magazine.

The advantage of metal storm is that you get more rounds before having to reload plus a very high fire rate.

However a high fire rate is not required on todays battlefield. And the disadvantages are many; Much heavier weapons plus very heavy replacement barrels, if the system jams it is almost impossible to clear in the field as there is very little access to any part of the gun as it is all sealed you would need to swap out the barrel to fix it. Electronic technology makes it more vulnerable to 'glitches'.

The system would be very good for an aircraft weapon pod let's say something like 20mm explosive rounds or similar. But in an infantry role it would be useless.

IMHO.

[1rankman]

i could see it in ambush systems
or pre assault

[icehollowpoint]

I think the Australian Army knows what it is doing more then any of us can comment just out of looks and stats. Essentially though it seems like a working version of the failed American OICW program without all the useless electronic crap.

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

You're right, Australia issues M-4's and M-16's to the SAS. :)

I think this project will be a money pit and scrapped also unless you get over seas buyers.

[Kindros]

You're right, Australia issues M-4's and M-16's to the SAS. :)

I think this project will be a money pit and scrapped also unless you get over seas buyers.

Like the US who invested a ****load into the system?

And for wolf the sceptic...

http://www.metalstorm.com/clientuploads/_photos/_4/_63.jpg

Top right directing point there chief. Your point about metal storm is for naught when it comes to this. The weapon uses the technology....which doesn't mean it is using metal storm the weapon system.

And for interest sake. The M16 with its 203 attached is almost 6kg without the 40mm nade loaded. And I would be assuming that they wouldn't bee too light either.

[icehollowpoint]

As to the weight issue, SASR in vietnam cut down the barrel on L2A1s (heavy barreled versions of the L1A1/FN FAL) , took the bipod off and mounted a XM148 UGL on it. I imagine that would've weighed a fair amount once both components were loaded. Yet they still preferred that combination to the M16/XM148 apparently.

Well we'll know for sure in 2010/2012, and if it's as good as they're hoping for Australia will be on top in small arms technology for once Lol.

And even if it isn't that great and only issued for specialized roles, it will still be a worthy advancement and basis to work off.

[Kindros]

It appears that the system can also be used, which is why I am presuming the US are interested, with an M16. Don't know if that is still the present case, though when it was advertised on a world scale at the NDIA conference in 2001 it was presented on an M16 also.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001smallarms/lee.pdf - 7mb

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Like the US who invested a ****load into the system?

Which they scrap at a whim like the XM8 and other projects similar to this including their own, the cost of a new weapon for a marginal performance increase was not worth it. If you are talking private American investors maybe a little more solid but you still need buyers. To get buyers it has to be so good the cost of the weapon plus the training and logistics all needs to be taken into account before any cheques will be written.

And for wolf the sceptic...

And for interest sake. The M16 with its 203 attached is almost 6kg without the 40mm nade loaded. And I would be assuming that they wouldn't bee too light either.


Nearly 6kg fully loaded, this thing is 9.9kg fully loaded and I still don't see how it would ever do well in hand to hand combat which is still common.

The grenade launcher is an interesting idea but it can be done with existing launchers on vehicles or an M-203 or in house clearing the Mark1 right arm.

As to the weight issue, SASR in vietnam cut down the barrel on L2A1s (heavy barreled versions of the L1A1/FN FAL) , took the bipod off and mounted a XM148 UGL on it. I imagine that would've weighed a fair amount once both components were loaded. Yet they still preferred that combination to the M16/XM148 apparently.

Well we'll know for sure in 2010/2012, and if it's as good as they're hoping for Australia will be on top in small arms technology for once Lol.

And even if it isn't that great and only issued for specialized roles, it will still be a worthy advancement and basis to work off.

You're talking about the M-16 of the 60's. I'm not surprised as it's not quite the same rifle and people did not trust it. The SAS gets more choice in what they use than a regular soldier, right now they are choosing M-4's and M-16's other then times where things like an Ak47 are prudent.

FN-FAL

Weight: 4.45 kg empty (3.77 kg empty for "Para" models)
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as24f-e.htm

That rifle was very much a loved weapon, we had them in Canada too and my dad has nothing but praise for it.

[icehollowpoint]

You're talking about the M-16 of the 60's. I'm not surprised as it's not quite the same rifle and people did not trust it. The SAS gets more choice in what they use than a regular soldier, right now they are choosing M-4's and M-16's other then times where things like an Ak47 are prudent.

FN-FAL

Weight: 4.45 kg empty (3.77 kg empty for "Para" models)
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as24f-e.htm

That rifle was very much a loved weapon, we had them in Canada too and my dad has nothing but praise for it.

I'm not sure as to whether the model in question was the M16 or the M16A1, however the british SAS were favorably using Armalites before the vietnam conflict. Most sources point to the Australian SASR having a high preference to the L1A1 because the 7.62 NATO could reliably kill targets or something along those lines, but yeah true that the early M16 models weren't quite reliable in the harsh jungle conditions.

And yes I love reading about the FAL , it's got such a rich amount of text and history surrounding it's use. I shot a L1A1, but won't say where being this a public forum.

Funny thing is I can't find any proper stats for the Aussie SASR modified L1A1 SLRs / The b!tch as it was nicknamed. The thing I'm interested in is the fire rate after they modified it to be fully automatic.

Oh and an interesting tidbit smokey, apparently the heavy barreled FN FAL was a joint project between Canadians and Australians.

[Captain_Wolf]

That's interesting Kindros, I haven't seen that pic before.

Still I think troops would be much happier with a rifle AND an MGL or M32 or similar six round 40mm grenade launcher. The M32 in particular is sweet with it's electronic sighting system. Which the AICW still lacks.

[Kindros]

That's interesting Kindros, I haven't seen that pic before.

Still I think troops would be much happier with a rifle AND an MGL or M32 or similar six round 40mm grenade launcher. The M32 in particular is sweet with it's electronic sighting system. Which the AICW still lacks.

I thought I read that it did have the electronic optics in one of those sites. Yeah I did, it was on world guns. They had tested it with, or it could also accept various typed of electronic sight systems. They even had a mock up of it with one of the systems at the top.

Which they scrap at a whim like the XM8 and other projects similar to this including their own, the cost of a new weapon for a marginal performance increase was not worth it. If you are talking private American investors maybe a little more solid but you still need buyers. To get buyers it has to be so good the cost of the weapon plus the training and logistics all needs to be taken into account before any cheques will be written. Their OICW project was scrapped because they just couldn't K.I.S.S. It had too many parts, too many bits which moved, and wasn't adaptable to their current weapon of choice the M16. Their XM8 as you said was scrapped as you said because it was part of their OICW project...
We are also talking US Government investment working with the DSTO and Metal Storm Because they are interested in this system. They are interested in it because Tennix, ADI, Metal Storm, and the DSTO made it land warrior capable. It will essentially be a band aid solution for the US, which they will more then likely love to take because of their own failed attempts at their own development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Warrior - P29 of prior pdf shows what I mean.
XM29 status update (September 2005): following the increase of caliber of OICW grenade launcher component from 20 to 25mm, in 2004 it has been decided to split the OICW system into two separate weapons, the 5.56mm XM8 modular assault rifle (OICW Increment 1), and the 25mm XM25 airburst assault weapon / grenade launcher (OICW Increment 2). Development of the complete XM29 (OICW Increment 3) system has been shelved, and will be resumed in the future only if all current problems with OICW Block 1 rifle component are solved, and weight constraints of entire system are met.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as40-e.htm

[icehollowpoint]

. Their XM8 as you said was scrapped as you said because it was part of their OICW project...

The XM8 was dropped because colt kicked up a legal hissy fit over the fact they weren't being considered first (DoD had a legal binding to prefer US companies IIRC).

Also IIRC the XM8 interesting enough, is apparently not much more than a reframed G36.

And just looking over wikipedia I found this bit of interesting information: "In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon had 6,000 rounds fired in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4. [1] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 6,000 total rounds [2], while the M4 carbine had 882. The FN SCAR placed second with 226 stoppages, and the HK416 had 233. The difference between the XM8, HK416, and FN SCAR was statistically equivalent when correcting for the less reliable STANAG magazine."

[Fallen.]

Funny thing is I can't find any proper stats for the Aussie SASR modified L1A1 SLRs / The b!tch as it was nicknamed. The thing I'm interested in is the fire rate after they modified it to be fully automatic.

Oh and an interesting tidbit smokey, apparently the heavy barreled FN FAL was a joint project between Canadians and Australians.

around 650 rounds per minute.
I believe its still on display at The Land Warfare Jungle Training School Conungra Sargents mess.
Although my type where never allowed into the "Snake pit" I was told by a reliable source it was still there in 98.
It is a custom shortend L2A1 barrel with no flash suppressor . barrel ends about an inch after the gas bleed/forsight boss . And it has a semi/auto selector like the L2A1.
It was used as a psycological weapon because it was so loud and shot a hugh great flame out on auto bursts. Very good at sending the "dont be stupid enough to follow us" message if a patrol wanted to break contact fast.

The AICW thing your all discussing looks like just a short barrel steyr with a multi shot 40mm gl on top.
Stupid idea. No weapon system can be all things to all soldiers.
A gl underslung on a steyr is almost as stupid, it completly blows the balance of the steyr when firing. Yes the additional firepower is welcome but the cost is to great in my opinion.

The original idea for indirect fire at a section level was an australian developed bullet trap style rifle grenade. It worked out as being too expensive per shot and meant we would need to be resupplied with something the US army didnt have. (oh noes)

That AICW thing is 10 years old. if you look at its ablities and compare it with what a current au soldier can do I think youll find we went down a better path. Not the best but better than that option.

But hey what do I know .


:hi:

[Captain_Wolf]

Also IIRC the XM8 interesting enough, is apparently not much more than a reframed G36.

The FN SCAR placed second with 226 stoppages, and the HK416 had 233.

Yes the XM8 is an outstanding rifle. But as you said it is very similar to the very underrated G36 which the Germans have been using for years and years. The G36 IMHO is the best standard issue infantry rifle in the world. Lucky German bastards.

Also lol at the HK416, the main advertising point HK are trying to push to sell that gun is that it is UN-JAMMABLE. But it seems in reality it performs on par with most modern weapons in its class. FN SCAR > HK416 IMHO. Not that it is bad it's just not as good.

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Their XM8 as you said was scrapped as you said because it was part of their OICW project...

That is not what I said, I said they will scrap any project on what seems a whim if the cost is too high for a marginal gain over what is currently in effective use.

We can use the M16 itself as an example of their 'good enough for now' attitude held by the people with both combat experience and now in charge of buying. HK made a new upper receiver that makes it no longer gas operated, in its place will be a piston operated rifle. This keeps carbon fouling out of the rifle itself making it more reliable but not much more so if you keep it clean and lubricated. Even in the field you can strip it down occasionaly or at the very least give it a wipe down.

What makes the decline a little surprising is that lthe HK-416 looks and feels exactly the same and I would imagine only a slight difference in the way it fires. You don't even need to get new rifles, just the upper reciever and have the armourer stick it on but the HK-416 will not happen for the regular military other than private and special forces. (I think the Rangers have some) With proper weapons dicipline, cleaning, lubrication etc including magazines the M-16 works just fine. See where I'm going with this?

The rifle in discussion is not suited for Special Forces for what I imagine to be obvious reasons as they are not assualt troopers. For not a massive improvement over what they have now most armed forces will not make the change to this weapon.


If this is an Australian pride issue which I completely understand (I'm the same with Canadian stuff), look at the SA-80 and how much of a money pit that was/is. Sure it may be a decent rifle now but I still read the grumbles and it says something when soldiers like the SAS have a choice they pick the C-7 and C-8 models of the M-16.



Oh and an interesting tidbit smokey, apparently the heavy barreled FN FAL was a joint project between Canadians and Australians.

Thanks for telling me that, our armed forces have a good relationship and where stuck in most of the same crap missions way back when as cannon fodder for the British.... It also looks like it left us with a love of heavier barrels, we tried to do it to the C-7 but could not get a license from Colt USA.

The XM8 was dropped because colt kicked up a legal hissy fit over the fact they weren't being considered first (DoD had a legal binding to prefer US companies IIRC).

That is one of the big ones.

Also IIRC the XM8 interesting enough, is apparently not much more than a reframed G36.

That melts apprently under sustained fire.

And just looking over wikipedia I found this bit of interesting information: "In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon had 6,000 rounds fired in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4. [1] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 6,000 total rounds [2], while the M4 carbine had 882. The FN SCAR placed second with 226 stoppages, and the HK416 had 233. The difference between the XM8, HK416, and FN SCAR was statistically equivalent when correcting for the less reliable STANAG magazine."


Wikipedia forgot to mention that quite often these are rigged, too much/too little lubrication. Dust too fine etc etc. There is already a favorite to begin with as it fits someones agenda.

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

It was used as a psycological weapon because it was so loud and shot a hugh great flame out on auto bursts. Very good at sending the "dont be stupid enough to follow us" message if a patrol wanted to break contact fast.

That would scare the crap out of me too!

The AICW thing your all discussing looks like just a short barrel steyr with a multi shot 40mm gl on top.
Stupid idea. No weapon system can be all things to all soldiers.
A gl underslung on a steyr is almost as stupid, it completly blows the balance of the steyr when firing. Yes the additional firepower is welcome but the cost is to great in my opinion.

All the add ons they stick on a lot of rifles do that. At least they look cool!


But hey what do I know .


:hi:

You're only an ex-weapons trainer.... :P

[Bammo]

And yes I love reading about the FAL , it's got such a rich amount of text and history surrounding it's use. I shot a L1A1, but won't say where being this a public forum.

Funny thing is I can't find any proper stats for the Aussie SASR modified L1A1 SLRs / The b!tch as it was nicknamed. The thing I'm interested in is the fire rate after they modified it to be fully automatic.

Oh and an interesting tidbit smokey, apparently the heavy barreled FN FAL was a joint project between Canadians and Australians.


Hmm - I can tell you that I have fired one of the Regiment's modfiied L1A1's and it is, truly, a bitch to shoot! This one had a spare handgrip bolted to the shortened barrel to provide some more control but in full auto it just rips skywards after the first 2 shots. The modification to make them full auto was basically a sophisticated version of the old "matchstick under the sear" trick that we used to use on the L1A1's.

L2A2's (commonly referred to here as the "AR" ) were the heavy barrelled version. I hadn't realised they were developed by us and Canada as well - I actually liked them but they were obsoleted pretty quickly as the 30 round magazines were just too heavy and took too long to reload. Plus they got damned hot after firing even a couple of bursts!

Interestingly, the L1A1/SLR shares a common design with the FAL but is generally completely incompatible. SLR's are imperial (inches) and FAL's metric so almost every single part has slightly different dimensions. An SLR magazine for instance will not fit an FAL without modifications.

[icehollowpoint]

Wikipedia forgot to mention that quite often these are rigged, too much/too little lubrication. Dust too fine etc etc. There is already a favorite to begin with as it fits someones agenda.

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that the stoppage difference between the XM8, HK416 and FN SCAR is negligible based on what you pointed out.

Hmm - I can tell you that I have fired one of the Regiment's modfiied L1A1's and it is, truly, a bitch to shoot! This one had a spare handgrip bolted to the shortened barrel to provide some more control but in full auto it just rips skywards after the first 2 shots. The modification to make them full auto was basically a sophisticated version of the old "matchstick under the sear" trick that we used to use on the L1A1's.

L2A2's (commonly referred to here as the "AR" ) were the heavy barrelled version. I hadn't realised they were developed by us and Canada as well - I actually liked them but they were obsoleted pretty quickly as the 30 round magazines were just too heavy and took too long to reload. Plus they got damned hot after firing even a couple of bursts!

Interestingly, the L1A1/SLR shares a common design with the FAL but is generally completely incompatible. SLR's are imperial (inches) and FAL's metric so almost every single part has slightly different dimensions. An SLR magazine for instance will not fit an FAL without modifications.

Heh heh, wouldn't you like to fire one of these? :D
http://www.dsarms.com/images/SA58OSW.gif

[Bammo]

Here's a piccie of me in action with an L2A2 (Full Auto version of the SLR) circa 1986...

http://www.injaz.com.au/uploads/l2a2.jpg

[Kindros]

Was that Charlie in the trees behind you there Bammo... :)

In any event of the topic of the XM28. it was canned. It was heavy, and couldn't fulfil its chartered needs...well so they say.
The AICW can, well at least when it is finished, so US money is funding something they want to have an option on... So what!

[Bammo]

Kindros,

Actually, that IS Charlie firing the AR. I thought it was one of me but I posted the wrong one. The guy firing the AR was Vietnamese with some unpronouncable Vietnamese name so we all just called him Charlie. A joke he took with very good grace and he became one of the most popular guys in the Regiment.

Of course the do-gooders found out and tried to accuse us of being racist and at one stage accused *him* of being racist for calling himself Charlie in the mess. F&*^cked up world we live in, eh?

[Kindros]

Kindros,

Actually, that IS Charlie firing the AR. I thought it was one of me but I posted the wrong one. The guy firing the AR was Vietnamese with some unpronouncable Vietnamese name so we all just called him Charlie. A joke he took with very good grace and he became one of the most popular guys in the Regiment.

Of course the do-gooders found out and tried to accuse us of being racist and at one stage accused *him* of being racist for calling himself Charlie in the mess. F&*^cked up world we live in, eh?

Wouldn't it be phuc'd up if he was Vietnamese?

[Captain_Wolf]

Now that's a call lol.

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Wouldn't it be phuc'd up if he was Vietnamese?

zinng! Nice on one Kindros.

Even if the tech is not used the lessons learned will be of value.

I had a buddy who goes by Chuck, he real name is John, or ChiWi in Vietnamese, his dad fought for the Viet Cong so he got called Charlie which was shortend to chuck and it stuck. Nice dude.

Bammo, you put on some weight!

[Bammo]

Noo-ooo that's not me in the photo, it's Charlie. But yes, I have!

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Me too.... :(

[Kindros]

I now sport a fashionable 1 pack, or keg depending on what time of the year it is. Gotta love the Internet, its making the smart people fat, and the stupid fatter.

[icehollowpoint]

I now sport a fashionable 1 pack, or keg depending on what time of the year it is. Gotta love the Internet, its making the smart people fat, and the stupid fatter.

Not me.... Ahhh testosterone is a wonderful thing..

Anyway getting back on topic, smokey you mentioned the G36's problem of melting under sustained fire, just thought I'd mention that it was actually heating of the handguards (which is why early videos you see alot of them holding it by the magwell while firing I think) but it was fixed quicksmart and is no longer a problem. Whether this was also fixed for the XM8, I have no idea, but I'd assume so since H&K continued work on the XM8 even after the army dumped it.

[CDN-SMOKEJUMPER]

Not me.... Ahhh testosterone is a wonderful thing..

Anyway getting back on topic, smokey you mentioned the G36's problem of melting under sustained fire, just thought I'd mention that it was actually heating of the handguards (which is why early videos you see alot of them holding it by the magwell while firing I think) but it was fixed quicksmart and is no longer a problem. Whether this was also fixed for the XM8, I have no idea, but I'd assume so since H&K continued work on the XM8 even after the army dumped it.

I didn't know that they continued work.

I'm still waiting for a phazer!

[icehollowpoint]

lol rail gun.

[Captain_Wolf]

http://images4.wikia.nocook ie.net/starwars/images/thumb/4/4e/Blaster_.jpg/250px-Blaster_.jpg

E-11 blaster for the win, Pew Pew Pew.

[Fallen.]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_s_inZl-EE8&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4OqlTXwLG40&feature=related
LOL Rail Gun !


:hi:

[80 Russians]

I didn't know that they continued work.

I'm still waiting for a phazer!

Set your faces to "stunned", I got your phazer right here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System ). Pity you need a Humvee to cart it around.

[nedlands1]

I don't like the look of the AICW. With such short engagement ranges and concerns for the safety of non-combatants, this weapon seems to make no sense. Surely after 50 years or so, the 40mm grenade could have been replaced with a much lighter and smaller grenade with the same punch. Why do you need a whole electronics suite to shoot someone several metres away with your rifle? Same goes for the UGL - a electronic sighting system seems a little overblown when you have 3 grenades to walk onto a target. Training should allow you to judge distance and use a conventional sight arrangement to get the grenade to where it needs to be.

Why do you need a whole new weapon when the same ends can be achieved with the existing weapon with a few modifications? Metal storm already makes a 3 shot grenade launcher which can operate like the underslung M203 or the shoulder fired M79. Mount that under a Steyr and you've almost got a AICW. There may be a problem with weight distribution but at least you can take it off as well as relieve the burden for the rest of the squad. As for the electronic sighting sytem, wouldn't a laser range finder suffice? At least if that fails you can still soldier on and keep on using the sights.

[80 Russians]

Valid Nedlands but one of the aims of AICW is to put a weapon into the hands of most infantry that can defeat an enemy in defilade with maximum accuracy and engagement speed.

The fusing options made possible by integrated targeting systems allow a lowly grunt to acquire, range, fuse and fire a grenade at a target in a lot less time (= less bullets coming back) with much less expenditure of ammo.

Now I aint saying that's worth lugging an extra 4kg of 486DX2-66 chips and batteries but that's the goal.

[nedlands1]

Valid Nedlands but one of the aims of AICW is to put a weapon into the hands of most infantry that can defeat an enemy in defilade with maximum accuracy and engagement speed.

The fusing options made possible by integrated targeting systems allow a lowly grunt to acquire, range, fuse and fire a grenade at a target in a lot less time (= less bullets coming back) with much less expenditure of ammo.

Now I aint saying that's worth lugging an extra 4kg of 486DX2-66 chips and batteries but that's the goal.

Didn't know about the fuzing, does this mean it has airburst capability? Most cover can be shot through anyways, don't need a 40mm grenade for that. :rapage: Light vehicles, infantry in the open and within buildings are another thing though... :blowup:

[80 Russians]

rocks, bunkers, sandbags, walls and rises in topography are stubbornly bulletproof especially at longer engagement ranges. Add to that a grenade that bursts just through a window as opposed to against the far wall is a lot more lethal. Add to that the capability to penetrate then detonate you've got a very effective door-buster.

The amount of AT4, Javelin and other "anti-tank" munitions that are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan to suppress lightly armed riflemen is a testament to the need for a smaller smart-fused weapon which is cheaper per round than a Javelin.

[1rankman]

dont know this but trying to get a grenade through a window from 100-300 meters is that not very hard

its bloody hard in game unless your on top of a high building shooting down

[Captain_Wolf]

dont know this but trying to get a grenade through a window from 100-300 meters is that not very hard

its bloody hard in game unless your on top of a high building shooting down
In game we don't have proper sighting systems for the GLA that's why you can't hit much with them. Plus sometimes you get some crazy deviation.
In real life getting a 203 through a window at 100 meters is fairly difficult actually with only a standard leaf sight. MUCH easier with an electronic sighting system. At 300 meters you would be lucky to hit the house let alone the window.

rocks, bunkers, sandbags, walls and rises in topography are stubbornly bulletproof especially at longer engagement ranges. Add to that a grenade that bursts just through a window as opposed to against the far wall is a lot more lethal. Add to that the capability to penetrate then detonate you've got a very effective door-buster.

The amount of AT4, Javelin and other "anti-tank" munitions that are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan to suppress lightly armed riflemen is a testament to the need for a smaller smart-fused weapon which is cheaper per round than a Javelin.
The problem with a 40mm is that it doesn't have very much range. Approx 400 meters maximum and that is firing it a very steep angle which is very inaccurate more like a mortar. And it's kill radius is fairly mediocre meaning you have to hit very close to your target.

Effective range with a 40mm is about ~100-150 meters for a single or point target. ~200-300 meters for a group or area target depending on size.

Whereas a SRAW or LAW or LAT whatever you want to call it, has a much bigger bang for buck. With the AT-4 (M136) penetrating approx 500mm of RHA (steel) or ~1 meter of concrete, plus it can hit a point target at ~300-350 meters. Even the smaller 66mm LAW can penetrate 300mm of RHA and 600mm of concrete at a range of about ~200-250 meters. Much better suited to destruction of cover and fortifications. And they are pretty cheap per unit as well.


At the end of the day the problem with most weapons that are capable of multiple functions is that they don't forfill either function very well. The AICW is an interesting combination of a rifle and a multi shot GLA however as a rifle it is too heavy and cumbersome and not even 7.62 (which would excuse the weight to some degree). And as a Grenade launcher it is again too heavy and cumbersome and has a very small magazine capacity compared to other multi shot grenade launchers.

Like I said before I would rather carry one of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkor_MGL and a rifle then just switch between them when needed. Two smaller more manageable weapons > one big cumbersome all rounder.