Replies

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?

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-/-

"But where's the belt or drum-fed 20mm version for vehicles, if it's such a useful design?"

The main question to that would be, Why? When you have the opportunity to carry a truckload of 40MM grenades to spray and pray, there isn't a need for it. If there is, changing the receiver length and staying with the caliber for more punch would simply be a matter of putting another variation on existing armament. This type of bells and whistles have been on armour vehicles for years. It's finally filtering down to the lowly foot soldier and the critics are crying, foul.

"But where's the belt or drum-fed 20mm version for vehicles, if it's such a useful design"

Archy - There are a couple of integrated fire control grenade launchers in development. The USN is working on a closed bolt, 40mm Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher that pairs advanced rangefinding with a ballistic computer and programmable fuzing. The ALGL is actually working, and should be fielded in limited numbers soon.

The second system is OCSW, for Objective Crew Served Weapon. OCSW is a 25mm system with design principles similar to OICW, but employing a belt fed 25mm grenade launcher. Same idea - programmable fuze and integrated ballistic solution - but longer range and enhanced lethality. OCSW is planned as a replacement for both Mk19 AGL and the M2 HMG.