Posted on 07/26/2002 8:40:48 PM PDT by mhking
Goaled to revolutionize the infantry battlefield, the OICW consolidates the needs of the U.S. Armed Forces into one rifle that will selectively replace the M16/M4 carbine and the M203 grenade launcher and accessories. The OICW integrates these capabilities and adds other functions currently available only as modular units. Capable of firing either the high explosive (HE) 20mm air bursting ammunition or NATO standard kinetic energy (KE) 5.56 mm ammunition, this rifle will substantially increase lethality and survivability on the battlefield. The modular Fire Control System (FCS) will range to the target (with day or night optics) and automatically communicates the range to the ammunition fuzing system. Using advanced turns count fuze arming technology, the ammunition proceeds to the target and bursts precisely overhead. The system goals are to precisely deliver airburst rounds in MOUT and rural terrains that are five times more lethal at greater than twice the range of the M203. The 20mm HE fuze function features include point detonation (P.D.) delay, self-destruct, and a "window mode. "Heckler and Koch (HK) is responsible for the development of the combined 5.56mm and 20mm weapon. Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Hopkins, MN, is the prime contractor, responsible for system integration, testing, 20mm High Explosive ammunition development, training, and support definition. Brashear LP of Pittsburgh, PA, is responsible for the development of the fire control system. |
That would be the ZF1.
I want one. ;-)
Here's Zorg using one in flamethrower mode. Couldn't find one of him using it in auto mode when he was trying to take out Leeloo.
Ah! Here we go. Here's a big one of Zorg holding a ZF-1, with a bunch of Mangalorans in the background.
Boy, is this ever an off-topic post, but I love that movie.
All that said, the OICW is an abortion. It's been thoroughly picked apart on TheFiringLine.com, with Travis McGee's comments pretty representative of the consensus over there. This 20mm round should prove itself as on a crew served or vehicle mounted weapon before trying to foist it off on the poor grunt.
I went to Mainside and they had a few more by another of my old units, 2/2.
Love my Mini (RR) thousands of rounds through it and never a single missfire.
What don't you like about the Mini-14?
And some still argue for a hard hitting long range primary battle rifle in .308 or similar.
What I don't get is you devotion to the 8 shot Garand with the "SPRING" clip, instead of the 20 shot box mag fed M-14.
What gives? Do you think the tiny bit of extra velocity from the 30-06 is worth going from 20 to 8 shots?
The M14 is pretty heavy, is very expensive to produce, and the 7.62mm NATO cartridge has too strong a recoil impulse to allow any control at all during full-auto fire in an infantry rifle-sized weapon. The open-top receiver allows mud and sand into the action. It's good points are that in semi-auto fire, its a rifleman's rifle, a dream to shoot, and very accurate. It's rugged and reliable. It has excellent long-range and penetration of light-to-medium-cover capabilities.
The AKM remains the best compromise, being supremely reliable, reasonably light, having a cartridge that offers reasonable controlability and good stopping power and penetration, and being very cheap to produce with the most outdated machine tooling. It's downside is that the ergonomics stink (the safety being the real problem), the AK-47 milled receiver variant is way too heavy, and it has limited long-range capability.
The answer may be to incorporate the best features of all these weapons into a new rifle with a new cartridge. The Russian 7.62x39mm cartridge that the AK uses enhances reliability greatly because of its tapering case. US military ballistic testing has identified the ~105 grain 6mm projectile at ~2900 fps as the best ballistic 'sweet spot', similar to a .243 Winchester round with heavy bullets. Advances in smokeless propellants, such as those used in Hornady's Light Magnum ammo, offer higher velocities in the same round with the same case pressures, compared to standard IMR powder. So a tapering case cartridge, maybe slightly larger than the 7.62/5.45x39mm ComBloc case, using the new high-tech powders and a 105 grain 6mm bullet at 2900 fps would be the round for a new rifle. It would offer a lot less recoil, would be shorter and lighter, and yet would offer similar long-range, stopping power and penetration performance as compared to the 7.62mm NATO. Like the .243 Winchester it's ballistically identical to, it would be a deer round, not a varmit round like the 5.56mm NATO round. Caseless ammo technology just isn't ready yet, so the conventional brass case is still the way to go.
The new rifle would use the tested & proven gas system of the AK-47. It would be embodied in a rifle using modern materials, but incorporating the loose tolerances of the AK. The milled aircraft aluminum upper receiver (a la M16) and polymer lower receiver (a la Glock) setup used on the new Armalite AR-180b may be the right choice. Also, a bullpup design like many current battle rifle designs offers a standard-length barrel with a short overall length, a great asset in close quarters while retaining long-range capability. Some kind of simple recoil buffering system and/or a very efficient muzzle brake would help controlability in full-auto fire, as would the bullpup configuration.
As for the under-barrel grenade launcher, the 20mm pump-action unit on the OICW may be reliable and effective without all the electronics junk. It should be set up as a modular system where the grenade launcher and electronics are add-ons that meld well with the basic weapon, and all systems can still work if the electonics fail. That is the opposite of the OICW approach, where the technogadgets, the programmible-fuse grenades, electronics, optics and 'secure' computer battlefield network were the primary goal of the design, with a chopped 5.56mm carbine tacked on almost as an afterthought. The basic rifle should be a rifle before anything else, reliable, effective and capable in its own right.
Those are my ideas on this subject. Comments?
Yep, I saw one demonstrated at the Naval Weapons Support Center at Crane, Indiana a few years back. It looks to me like they've got an immediate future as a defense against incoming sea-skimming missiles like the Exocet, sort of a continuous shotgun defence such attacks. I expect that'll be one of the first practical applications for the concept.
And with land mines falling out of favour for area defence, remotely triggered Metalstorm mortar launchers have a serious application for denying critical locations such as bridges, mountain passes or desert-area waterholes to unwelcome visitors. Metalstorm offers a swell opossibility of differing warhead mixes for such projectiles to be used, depending on the target configuration.
And though I doubt we'll see a Metalstorm application in the small arms field in the near future, the possibility that something along the lines of a multishot M79 grenade launcher but with the punch of a Light antitank weapon, possibly using a ring airfoil grenade, is certainly a more likely bit of useful kit for the poor bloody infantryman than the OICW now appears to be, and it should be quite usable in urban or built-up areas in MOUT operations, as well, a *master key* for doors or walls where access is immediately required.
-archy-/-
I want one. ;-)
Here's Zorg using one in flamethrower mode. Couldn't find one of him using it in auto mode when he was trying to take out Leeloo.
See Post #79. The ZF-1? My favourite!
So, what does the little red button on the bottom of the gun do...?
Those are my ideas on this subject. Comments?
I agree that the rifle and grenade launcher should both be individually suitable, stand-alone weapons in their own right. I think the Brits may well have been onto something with their original EM-2 .280/30 [7mm] bullpup rifle design of the 1950s. Redesign it for bottom or other ambidextrous-use ejection, ambidex controls, and with more corrosion-resistant materials, and I think you'd really have something.
As for the grenade launcher, during WWII the Germans developed an explosive grenade cartridge for their hand-fired 27mm leuchtpistole and the Argentines have a high-explosive 12-gauge shotgun shell, said to be just right either for halting automobiles at roadblocks or for determining the lengths at which manufacturers of ballistic protective vests will honor their products' guarantees. The Russians seem to have found their 30mm underbarrel grenade launchers to be as suitable as the larger-bore American versions, so there's certainly some indication that it's at least possible.
But where's the belt or drum-fed 20mm version for vehicles, if it's such a useful design? That would seem to be the eventual replacement for the existing Mk13 vehicular and ground mounted automatic grenade launchers, if the ammunition works as advertised.
-archy-/-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.