ST new 40mm Low Velocity ABM
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
In short, it's not so much how much explosives you can pack into your round as to how capable your round is at moving that explosive to your target. You can have a 40mm grenade that packs a lot of explosives but it's "mailing" options are limited or you can give that same amount of explosives in several smaller, but much more capable packages.
Personally I'll go for the smaller format once it's perfected.
And of course, there are only so many 40mm grenades you can carry as opposed to twice the amount with the new format, not to mention things like rate of fire, sustained fire, engagement envelope, precision are superior to the old 40mm. This means that a unit using the new format will be significantly more effective then a similar unit using the old format.
So to end off, I don't know why lionnoisy is so desperate to put down the new format as something unworkable that will never come out for "tomorrow's war" except that fact that it will threaten the 40mm market that ST is heavily invested in, given it is so much more effective that what ST has come out with.
Somehow the idea that ST will not eventually retool to make the new format once it's established is did not occur to him.
In short, it seems that lionnoisy reminds me of a certain kind of video game player that puts down other video games that are not his favourite not because they are bad video games, but simply because they threaten the popularity of his favourite game.
I perfer to mail one whole packet to do the job one time.
Sending serveral packages theory may sound nice .
If assumpting both of them deliver on the spot. if they pack less explovies and fragment - how they are more capable ?
I try to imagine - I shot 1 x 40mm round at a target 200m & you to make up the same payload - shoot 3 x 20mm rounds at a target 200m . My round will hit and kill all enemies. Your round due to less payload - will need 2nd & 3rd to do the job totally, wait .... if enemy hit 1st round by you .... think they would take cover already...!!! But then you must be shoot 2nd and 3rd round fast like rambo - so they will not have reaction time. But then i began to wonder if your 2nd and 3rd round in your hurry to fire them like rambo, will you miss !!!
Frankly T-trex you are just the opposite of lionnoisy like a young boy who just like new toys without question of the contents - blindly accepting the claims of the manufacturer.... and writing of older stuff effectiveness !!!!
-
I perfer to mail one whole packet to do the job one time.
Sending serveral packages theory may sound nice .
If assumpting both of them deliver on the spot. if they pack less explovies and fragment - how they are more capable ?
I don't think you are getting my point, which is kind of strange considering how obvious it is.
The problem with the 40mm is that it's engagement options are extremely limited, even if you have a more explosives, the ability to send them to the enemy are hampered by it's slow flight time and large CEP as well as the difficulty of having to use an lobbing shot to engage even targets that are moderately close ranged.
So what this means that in practice a lot of 40mm is actually wasted on missed shots, or are totally unable to engage their targets at all.
I try to imagine - I shot 1 x 40mm round at a target 200m & you to make up the same payload - shoot 3 x 20mm rounds at a target 200m . My round will hit and kill all enemies. Your round due to less payload - will need 2nd & 3rd to do the job totally, wait .... if enemy hit 1st round by you .... think they would take cover already...!!! But then you must be shoot 2nd and 3rd round fast like rambo - so they will not have reaction time. But then i began to wonder if your 2nd and 3rd round in your hurry to fire them like rambo, will you miss !!!
Erm what makes you think the 25mm grenade lacks the explosive power to take out a group of enemies?
I've checked the lethal radius of both grenades, they check out at about the same. In fact the 25mm smart grenade actually has a LARGER kill radius of 10m vs 5m for the old 40mm HEDP due to it's airbursting effect. Killing power is not an issue here.
But that's a moot point considering that 25mm smart airbust packs more then enough explosives to take out a group of enemies in one shot. I do not see any reason to doubt the killing power of the 25mm.
Also if you are talking about things like new thermobaric grenades and the like, killing power is not really an issue more then the ability to send that killing power to the enemy. The main weakness of the 40mm (which you have no even adressed), is it's slow projectile that makes it very difficult to aim especially at longer ranges.
Also you are not accounting for the fact that you have an increased engagement envelope afforded by the 25mm grenade. You can shoot further, faster and with more precision then the old 40mm grenade.
So I don't know what you are talking about. You only look at amount of explosives and leave out things like range, ease of use, precision and the like that matter as much, if not more. I think it is you who needs to justify your case and not me, you are focusing on a very limited scope to make your argument while ignoring just about everything else.
Going by your logic, one could reckon there's no need for a 40mm grenade at all because a hand held SFG grenade is far more powerful then what we can pack into a 40mm shell.
Frankly T-trex you are just the opposite of lionnoisy like a young boy who just like new toys without question of the contents - blindly accepting the claims of the manufacturer.... and writing of older stuff effectiveness !!!!
Am I one?
Anyone the opposite of lionnoisy would be someone who knows his stuff and argues for them well, in which case I would indeed not mind you saying I am the opposite of lionnoisy.
Note that I have gone over in detail about the advantages of the new format grenades over the old 40mm, and you so far have failed to really produce anything concrete to refute them beyond vauge dismissals. I have pointed out how the greater range and precision of the 25mm affords more options to the infantryman.
Also I've noticed that in your points you do not seem to have done any homework on the new round, given your points made on it's range as well as the tactical advantages it offers to the user in terms of time on target are vastly off. In fact it almost seems to me that you are making your comments based not on knowledge, but on figures that I frankly have no idea where you are pulling out from except from assumptions.
And I am not accusing you, I will quote your examples.
Firstly, you made the mistake of getting the action of these new grenades entirely wrong, saying that they behave like tank rounds and rely on penetrative power.
Those new generation rounds like - 20mm rounds - the concentration is speed on launch - for the penetration power, it shoot straight and fast and penetrate more like your tank rounds.
Where in the world did you get such an idea? This is nowhere even near anywhere how the new grenades work!
And penetration is certainly not part of its job description.
After I corrected you, you backtracked and then came up with more points, which was as follows:
Let compare - speed 20mm vs 40mm - how much faster 0.1 sec ? I am happy with 40mm delivery speed. If ability to go 0.01 - 0.03 sec faster ... it is just better to have.
This is not only entirely wrong, your first estimate of 0.1 second is 10 to 20 times less then the actual time advantage it offers to the user, and your 0.01-0.03 sec faster it is wrong by a factor of 100!
The new rounds are considerably faster then the old 40mm, by a factor of nearly 2.5. This means that the rounds arrive a lot faster then the old 40mm, sometimes nearly thrice as fast.
Even at moderate ranges like 200 meters, the round arrives on target a nearly two seconds before the old 40mm.
How does this happen? Firstly the 40mm not only has a slow projectile speed of 77mps, you have to lob it significantly in order to reach the ranges you want, this means that the projectile has to travel additional distance in the arc to reach the target increasing the flight time. Increased flight time means greater projectile instability and CEP (affected by wind and the like), as well as the possibility of the enemy moving out of the lethal radius of the round as well as extremely large lead estimations.
The new rounds however are nearly 2.5 times at fast at 185-200mps, which affords them a much flatter arc when they are fired. This actually travel LESS distance then a 40mm when fired at the target at the same range, vastly increasing their time on target.
And all this matters quite a bit in battle, especially if you are trying to give squad support with grenades.
And at long ranges like 400m, the new grenades beat the old one by a lot, you are talking about enough time to actually take cover in the region of 4 seconds. and the difference is extremely significant why? Because the time lag is significant enough that the enemy can actually move out of the killbox.
Note that 2-4 seconds is a BIG difference from the 0.02 and 0.03 sec faster that you claimed. In fact the time advantage is about 100 times faster then what you claim!
Where you got 0.02 and 0.03 I do not know seriously... but in any case the advantages afforded by the 25mm are not simply "nice to have", the can be an absolute lifesaver, you are talking in the ballpark of a 250 percent increase in performance in a very vital area such as muzzle velocity and time on target.
Let compare - range 20mm vs 40mm - ? vs 400m. Most of 40mm are 400m, I am happy with 400m. If further of course would be good. But it is hard to say 20mm has longer range. Please note that South African designers of the Milkor MGL ("M32MGL" in U.S. service) developed a new "Extended Range Low Pressure" (ERLP) 40x51mm cartridge. This round extends the range of the 40 mm grenade from 400m (440yd) to 800m (880yd).This is another area in which you got your facts totally wrong again. The new grenades can reach out to 1 click, where the old 40mm can only reach 400 meters.
1000 m is a big difference from 400m, I don't see how you can say that "it is hard to say 20mm has longer range"
But this is not all, there is more.
Now range is one thing, but the ability to engage with precision at range matters as much as well. If you look at the stats for both rounds, you'll realize that the new format grenades are better as well.
Firstly at 400m, the 40mm grenade is not good for anything but area targets (that is dispersed targets), this is because at that range the CEP of the round is so high that it is practically useless for attacking point targets like windows or a dug in enemy. It does not matter even if the 40mm round is smart airbust because the CEP is large enough that despite the enhanced radius of the airbust, it is still ineffective in engaging point targets.
And I've shot at targets with the 40mm at 400m before, the round not only takes very long to arrive, it is also not good for anything other then area bombardment. Additionally the enemy can very well move out of the kill radius of the round in the time it took to reach him, meaning you to lead the target and guess where he'll be anywhere from the 5-7 seconds it takes for your 40mm to reach the killbox.
Contrast this to the performance of the new grenades, they can engage point targets up to 500m, which is 300-350m greater then the old grenades in point-target performance (150-200m). Additionally, beyond that they have an additional 200 meters where they will be optimal for area targets (700m) and their maximum range is a further 200 meters (1000m) where they still retain their ability to engage area targets.
All in all on one target for range, you are talking about a 200-250 percent increase in performance, and that is not factoring in things like smart munitions and ease of use as well as the greater volume of fire that can be sustained with the new munitions.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the greater range, precision, rate of fire, and speed of the new format grenades.
In fact it seems to me that your entire case is based on one point, and that is pretty much the 40mm has more explosives then the 25mm, and as I have pointed out, this is NOT the only factor. There is no point having so much explosives when you can't effectively send it to the target.
So who's the fanboy who blindly sticks to his case here? Prove to me in concrete terms why the 40mm is better and I'll agree, but your points so far are not up to scratch. And note that I'm not speaking blindly here, I've shot the 40mm HEDP before and is well aware of what it takes to aim and use this round. It does not take anybody with a bit of common sense to realize the advantages afforded by the new format grenades.
Who is blind here to miss out the fact that the new projectile is up to 250% faster?
Who is blind to miss out the fact that it can engage point targets over twice the distance of the old round, and area targets over twice that as well?
Who is blind to miss out that the infantryman can carry twice the amount of rounds?
In fact the only thing that seems visible to you is the amount of explosives... which I find very odd indeed.
So I think the onus is on you to prove your case, calling me a fanboy of new technology and calling me rambo will not help, it's just a strawman argument.
I do not blindly support something just because it is new, I just did the math and it pointed to the new format.
I have no vested interest in advertising for the 25mm grenade anyway, am I getting paid by them? Nope. I made my own conclusions from the facts I gathered about the new grenade format, as well as my own experiences with the old. And frankly it's pretty obvious which one gives you a significant tactical advantage.
-
What I am saying is this, all things considered there is no question which is the superior grenade. In fact the entire rash of developments in the old 40mm grenade was in response to the performance of the new format to keep it in service to the forseeable future.
But if you are talking about the new generation of things? It won't be found in the 40mm grenade any more then adding superchargers to the P-51 Mustang in response to the Me262 allowed the prop plane to dominate into the jet age.
My take on this? The 40mm format retains flexibility in application as it can do more then just kill stuff (whitestar, smoke, CS), but if you are talking about a killing weapon for the soldier, then it is obvious that a new format is needed other then a highly arcing, slow tactically limited weapon like the 40mm grenade. In fact the reason why the 25mm grenade is so much better is not so much as in it is so advanced then the fact that the 40mm is crappy at sending explosives across the battlefield:
The XM25 provides the soldier with a 300 to 500% increase in hit probability to defeat point, area, and defilade targets out to 500 meters. The weapon features revolutionary high-explosive, air-burst ammunition programmed by the weapon's target acquisition/fire control system.
What this means is that your pk is dramatically increased by 3-5 times over the old 40mm system. And worse, if two sides were to face off, one with the 25mm system the other with the 40mm system, the side using the 40mm will be vulnerable to the side with the 25mm system long before they can even get in range (1000m vs 400m), and at 500m the 25mm becomes good enough to engage point targets while the side with the 40mm can't even start to shoot for another 100 meters.
And even when the 40mm side closes to 400 meters, just within their maximum range to use, their rounds have such a huge CEP and long projectile flight time they are only good for stationary, area targets while the 25mm side can engage them with precision fire all this while. In fact the 40mm side will not have a good chance of hitting point targets against the 25mm side until they close to 200 or 150 meters, plenty of time for them to get chewed up.
And not that even within close engagement range, the 25mm system offers an increased rate of fire as well as longer sustained fire over the ammunition limited 40mm GL system. All in all the math indicates the 40mm side is in for a rough fight.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Going by your logic, one could reckon there's no need for a 40mm grenade at all because a hand held SFG grenade is far more powerful then what we can pack into a 40mm shell.
Am I one?
The new rounds however are nearly 2.5 times at fast at 185-200mps, which affords them a much flatter arc when they are fired. And at long ranges like 400m, the new grenades beat the old one by a lot, you are talking about enough time to actually take cover in the region of 4 seconds. and the difference is extremely significant why? Because the time lag is significant enough that the enemy can actually move out of the killbox.
This is another area in which you got your facts totally wrong again. The new grenades can reach out to 1 click, where the old 40mm can only reach 400 meters.
Now range is one thing, but the ability to engage with precision at range matters as much as well. If you look at the stats for both rounds, you'll realize that the new format grenades are better as well.
Firstly at 400m, the 40mm grenade is not good for anything but area targets (that is dispersed targets), this is because at that range the CEP of the round is so high that it is practically useless for attacking point targets like windows or a dug in enemy.
And I've shot at targets with the 40mm at 400m before, the round not only takes very long to arrive, it is also not good for anything other then area bombardment. Additionally the enemy can very well move out of the kill radius of the round in the time it took to reach him, meaning you to lead the target and guess where he'll be anywhere from the 5-7 seconds it takes for your 40mm to reach the killbox.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the greater range, precision, rate of fire, and speed of the new format grenades.
You are the one that is went overboard !!!
Look at your own arguement !!!Your arugement is that 20mm round is better then 40mm round and should replace it.
My argument was 40mm round have its advantages also - it will not replace by 20mm - it have its place , and co-exist with 20mm.
I have stated that 40mm have its own advantage, which you 20mm round cannot beat .
Look at what the words that you twisted out of context - "one could reckon there's no need for a 40mm grenade at all because a hand held SFG grenade is far more powerful then what we can pack into a 40mm shell" ? This statement just is exactly what i am trying to say - every weapon have its own use, like SPG grenade ... there is a time when it is more handly to use then 20mm or 40mm !!!
Unlike you which blindly just say that 20mm is totally advantage over 40mm - i am just trying to remind you that yes 20mm may have the range and speed , but there is other factor like payload !!! which come in effect !!! - You cannot just blindly argue on range and speed !!! I also bring up - that fact that people also come up with longer range 40mm which can also reach 800m - you ignore it !!!I have seen navy seal shoot 40mm into a window 100 -200m alway acurately !!! It works. 40mm is mean to be indirect fire - that the way arty works. Tell me if enemy is dig in if 40mm cannot hit them how in the world 20mm can ? it drill into the earth is it ?
Why are you so blindly on greater range, precision, rate of fire, and speed ??? If you so blindly think fast,rate of fire, precision and speed , then you are blind !!!
if you want precision - you shoot the guy with rifle !!! - you use 40mm as arty - which is indirect fire - area target !
I am telling you may blindly love 20mm but 40mm is here to stay - you cannot replace it with 20mm as it still have its own advantage over 20mm. 20mm will just complement it . -
You are the one that is went overboard !!!
Look at your own arguement !!!I looked at it actually, it seems that the main problem with it is that is pwns you very badly.
roflcopter.
Who is the one going overboard? I have stated my points consistently and keeping away from using vauge arguments and assumptions.
Your arugement is that 20mm round is better then 40mm round and should replace it.
You can't even get your facts straight, and not to mention the round in question now is the 25mm format.
And yes, if you are talking about for the purpose of killing, the 25mm format is intended and will eventually replace the 40mm round. This is not my argument or intention, but the argument and intention of the US military as well as others looking into it.
So blame me for what? It's you who didn't read the literature on the subject.
My argument was 40mm round have its advantages also - it will not replace by 20mm - it have its place , and co-exist with 20mm.
Wrong. If you are talking about the intention of the 40mm round for killing, the intention is to eventually phase it out for a superior format, which as it stands now is the 25mm.
I have seen navy seal shoot 40mm into a window 100 -200m alway acurately !!! It works. 40mm is mean to be indirect fire -
40mm has no choice but to be indirect fire because it is simply too slow.
What will the same navy seal do with a new format grenade that affords him a 300-500 percent hit to kill probability on that same target? His combat effectiveness will drastically increase.
Also that same seal with the 25mm will be able to pop a window at 500 meters, far futher then he could with the 40mm.
That same seal will have a drastic advantage over a smiliar seal using the 40mm.
that the way arty works. Tell me if enemy is dig in if 40mm cannot hit them how in the world 20mm can ? it drill into the earth is it ?
Rubbish once again. The smart airbust of the 25mm is designed to kill such a target, in fact is is actually more effective then the old 40mm HEDP then killing a target behind cover.
Also, if the enemy is out of your engagement envelope of 40mm how are you going to hit him?
Use a better round lah.
if you want precision - you shoot the guy with rifle !!! - you use 40mm as arty - which is indirect fire - area target !
LOL, this point is pretty funny. Nice attempt to rewrite the field manual on infantry tactics though.
Wrong again. If you lack precision you can't even kill your target at all.
What you are using are singular and vauge examples. Just because a seal can drop a 40mm into a window at 200 meters does not mean that this is a feat that can be replicated with reliability across the entire army.
Add in things like having to have many different users from the average infantryman to spec ops forces, and other factors in combat you get this thing known as Pk, or probability of kill.
And the fact is, the Pk of 40mm is low compared to other options. This means that for a single target it does not matter if a seal could drop a round into a window at 200 meters ONCE or that you've seen it once. What matters is that the entire army can repeat this feat with efficency.
And unfortunately they can't. It's a well known fact that 40mm leaves much to be desired, that's what they need a superior round.
With it's puny kill radius, large CEP, slow velocity and long flight time the 40mm is hardly an ideal arty package, and in fact it's indirect flight path is bane rather then boom for it.
This is because infantrymen engage targets within their LOS, engaging something within your LOS with slow, indirect fire is nonsense.
Why are you so blindly on greater range, precision, rate of fire, and speed ??? If you so blindly think fast,rate of fire, precision and speed , then you are blind !!!
As opposed to what?
Your vauge and failing arguments that aren't making any headway in anything?
I am sorry but you need to do your math. If I can engage a targer further, faster and with more precision then you what does this say about my ability to kill you compared to what you who are armed with something vastly inferior?
I would like you see you using the same argument arguing for the "co-existence" of the british longbow versus the assault rifle.
Frankly, your arguments are getting quite funny.
I am telling you may blindly love 20mm but 40mm is here to stay - you cannot replace it with 20mm as it still have its own advantage over 20mm. 20mm will just complement it .
You are also telling me a lot about your ability to make coherent arguments.
ROFL.
Anyway I am telling you that new format grenades will eventually replace 40mm for the purpose of killing if things go as plan and the technology is worked out, and that has always been my point.
40mm may survive in other applications where they are good for, but in as far as coming to kill the enemy they are running out of time.
-
All this fanciful tech simply means there will be a relatively high failure rate, never mind that ST's QC is horrible.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
All this fanciful tech simply means there will be a relatively high failure rate, never mind that ST's QC is horrible.
Tough if ST is trying to lead the field in advanced 40mm munitions.
Personally I don't think ST and SAF work very well together... at least when it comes to things like infantry weapons. The most bread and butter weapon, the SAR is still to make its rounds around the SAF despite it being in existence for nearly a decade. In fact when I was in service which was not long ago even our grenadiers in a front line unit have not gotten the SAR-21 M203, which means there is a lack of compatiability between our SAR-gunners and our grenadiers. Can't swap mags if needed.
-
t-rex, you just dump pages of words - data to try to drown out any other point of views ! Just blindly base on your own preference. Just because something look better, perform better - the other 40mm suddenly will be totally wipe out and suddenly it is not effective ! Sorry no point in arguing with a child that is too engross with new toys to remember that old toy still works.
Think time will be my judge ! Let see if 40mm round and 40mm weapons still exist and is popular after 10 years !!!See your example - "I would like you see you using the same argument arguing for the "co-existence" of the british longbow versus the assault rifle" - middle ages weapon to compare with modern rifle - that is why i am saying you are unfair !! You just twisting words !!! since 40mm a 20th century weapon not a middle age weapon !!! You just plain unfair.
As for 40mm - suddenly you write till it is totally ineffective weapon - so useless !!! Please tell it to those who use it - and those who been killed or injuried by 40mm weapons .... you can twist your words ... but fact remains - it have done its damages and kills !!! And it will still be in use even though you like your new toys
-
t-rex, you just dump pages of words - data to try to drown out any other point of views ! Just blindly base on your own preference.
LOL now you are getting rather laughable, you are trying to make an argument against me for actually having making a solid case?
I am afraid this "wall of text" that you claim to "drown out" any other point of view actually comes under the well established practice of making a solid case for your own position under the established routines of debate. If you are unable to come up with anything except vauge points and singular assumptions that try to fly in the face of data, then you can't blame your opponent for having a more convincing argument then you.
Really, this is pretty funny, because it's like you are pretty akin to amateur boxer trying to pick a fight with a professional boxer, and then blaming his opponent for being able to punch harder and faster then him.
Think time will be my judge ! Let see if 40mm round and 40mm weapons still exist and is popular after 10 years !!!
Wow, so now instead of actually facing your opponent in the field of debate, you are setting up some arbitary standards of judging the matter?
The case in point has no time frame, I am saying simply is that once the situation allows for the new format grenades to be perfected, there is no question about their superior killing ability over the old format grenades. And also I am arguing for the fact that a unit using the new round would be far better off then one using an old round.
Pretty much you are trying to argue in vauge and ambigious terms, such as length of service and the like. Being in service or being popular does not mean that something is sucessful not should you actually go into war with it.
In simple terms, I don't care if 40mm is still in service 10 or 20 years from now. What matters is that my men go into battle with the greatest advantage afforded. Chances are if you are stuck with an old thing is more of having no choice or lack of ability to get something better instead of it actually being useful.
Just because something look better, perform better - the other 40mm suddenly will be totally wipe out and suddenly it is not effective !
That's your reading into my position.
My position is simple but you have failed to grasp it. The new format grenades are superior to the old ones and offers the grunt more killing ability. What militaries do with that knowledge is not my concern, though I suspect they are more likely to see reason then you.
See your example - "I would like you see you using the same argument arguing for the "co-existence" of the british longbow versus the assault rifle" - middle ages weapon to compare with modern rifle - that is why i am saying you are unfair !! You just twisting words !!! since 40mm a 20th century weapon not a middle age weapon !!! You just plain unfair.
Unfortunately you fail to appeal to the law of logical congruence.
Why should not your example be taken to it's logical extreme? If you made a valid and solid point it should be able to wistand intellectual rigour and testing. Unfortunately your ability to make points ignoring hard facts and running on singular examples like "I or John Doe can do this or that and hence that is what our case is built on."
You are the one going by singular and isloated examples and ignoring the cold, hard numbers.
My point is simple, I don't care if something can be put through a window by a Navy at 200 meters or what diameter it is or not. If it's better it's better. If it replaces or does not replace something is not my concern. But naturally militaries are always in the habit of improving their stuff so chances are your beloved 40mm will go the way or the dinosaurs or be forced to change and adapt their roles.
But in my opinion of course, is that once technology is perfected there is no question of what the military will do or choose. You don't fight a war by hanging onto legacy systems once you have something better at hand. In fact various attempts to replace the M-16 is not so much proof that the M-16 cannot be dispensed with, but that the US military reconizes they need something much better then it.
How's that different with the 40mm?
As for 40mm - suddenly you write till it is totally ineffective weapon - so useless !!! Please tell it to those who use it - and those who been killed or injuried by 40mm weapons .... you can twist your words ... but fact remains - it have done its damages and kills !!! And it will still be in use even though you like your new toys
Did I say it's totally ineffective? The only thing that seems to be totally ineffective is your ability to apply proper comprehension to things written.
In fact I have spelt out much more clearly then you what the 40mm can and cannot do. Instead of writing "I can take out groups of enemies" or "I've seen a navy seal do..." I have gotten down to the numbers and did my math.
So while you write about navy seals I can point out that same navy seal
So what's totally ineffective? Only in your world of one-track, black and whites there are.
The facts are simple 400m vs 1000m max range, 300-500% improved Pk, 150-200m vs 500m point target performance, 200+% improvement in flight time. I make my conclusions from there.
"Write till it is totally ineffective" is your assumption and you went on to make a unnecessary and weak argument on the number of people killed and injured by it which does nothing to add to your case. Did I say the 40mm was unable to kill? Nope, that was your little pet case and you're proving something that everybody already know that did nothing but made you look like you didn't know how to argue cohorently.
I am afraid you are your own worse enemy in this thread.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
The new format grenades are superior to the old ones and offers the grunt more killing ability. What militaries do with that knowledge is not my concern, though I suspect they are more likely to see reason then you.
Who is using the new format ? Limited users !!! It just just you reading out manufacturer articles to say how good it is !!!
If it is that good why would not other militaries adopt it ?
By saying that - why militaries do with the knowledge is not your concern = shows that you just blindly read out something - without needing to justify if it is really that effective in real - that is not your concern ? Very irresponsible ...that mean you can say anything you like without caring it is real or right !!! - really talkcock that all !!!
-
all STFU, Rangers pwns all noob shit
-
Who is using the new format ? Limited users !!! It just just you reading out manufacturer articles to say how good it is !!!
If it is that good why would not other militaries adopt it ?
Oh boy, you really pwned yourself hard this time...
This is a good example of you not doing your homework once again. The new format grenades are still in development, so what makes you think that something that is still in development will magically find adoption in militaries worldwide. Is the JSF currently in widespread use? Is network centric warfare in widespread use yet? Is the FCS AFV or AAAV in widespread use?
Are these systems vastly superior to current ones and slated to eventually replace them?
Yes.
Just FYI, does the US Army's attempt to find a better alternative to the 40mm to equip their troops count as a big user to you?
LOL.
You don't seem to know just about anything about the actual affairs of things given you have done little in this thread but make a long string of embarrassing factual errors in your posts and then trying to crying about your opponent being more prepared then you, how funny and sad.
By saying that - why militaries do with the knowledge is not your concern = shows that you just blindly read out something - without needing to justify if it is really that effective in real - that is not your concern ? Very irresponsible ...that mean you can say anything you like without caring it is real or right !!! - really talkcock that all !!!
For the reason given in my response above, you just about wasted your energy typing this paragraph. It seems that common sense and basic reasoning is not your concern and now you are trying for desperate arguments to booster your failing case... but it is unfortunate that you've made just another embarassing mistake by trying to argue against a future combat system by going for it's current adoption status when it's not even in that stage yet, a simply fact you could have picked up had you bothered to even read the relevant articles.
So who's the ignorant one here speaking bird talk?
I'm afraid it's just you.
-
Whether it is a 20 mm , 25 mm or 40 mm each will have its pros and cons. Until the 25 mm round is finally accepted and adopted ( if ever ), the 40 mm will be here to stay. Even if ( to me it is a big if ) 25 mm gets adopted, dont forget that there is lots of room for improvements yet for the 40 mm and there will still be many users for this round.
-
In the Future Combat System FY08 Program Adjustments,
US Army just ''eliminates'' XM-307 (advanced crew served weapon),
ie 25 mm air burst grenade launcher--25 ABS GL.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm
Eliminates XM307 (Advanced Crew Served Weapon)---BOQ
Currently ,there is no ABS individual (hand held) or crew served
ABS in US Army,according to open sources.
of courses,u can say they have star war weapon,but classified.
Can u tell me the reasons of dropping XM 307?
1.Telling the facts is not belittleing or insulting
I just tell the facts here.While i say US Army dunt get XM 307
in the near future,
can i tell u ST alreday get similiar weapons in the products list
for few years?
I have not said US few defence giants not able to produce XM 307.
Previoulsy,when i say ST can make comparable weapons as ang moh,
u guys jump into the roof.
I dunt know what will u do if i tell u ST can do better than Ang Moh!!
US cannot make XM 29,but Singapore can make similiar weapon
Sg Ty have already told me other countries can make dual calibres
individual weapon.But can they make the ABS GL,as i report
in the opening post?If so,pl share here.
Future is just a dream.U have to dream big,of course.
USA made a mistake by developing ABS in individual weapon first,
ie XM 29.They shall follow ST who developed ABS in crew served
weapon first.
Now Yankees find out squeeing the fire control in a small weapon
is a difficult task,if not mission impossible.
Dream big is a must.But u have to do it step by step.
U cant do every things.Therefore,u have to Intergrate Off the Shelf
Systems to expediate the development.
u can see fr list below that ST can make similiar weapons like
XM 29(US's dream is multiple grenades in magazine.Singapore is single shot but
dream come true.Which one do u prefer now?)
XM 307 25 ABS GL,project dropped. vs dreams come true
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=138
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/detail.aspx?pdid=277
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
reference:
http://www.army.mil/aps/08/information_papers/transform/Major_Acquisition_Programs_Future_Combat_System.html
Eliminates the XM-307 (advanced crew served weapon).
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/213732
http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/programs.asp
no more XM 307 there.
http://www.gd.com/
http://www.usnightvision.com/Downloads/PEOBrochure.pdf
http://www.defense-update.com/products/x/xm307.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/?s=XM307+Advanced+Crew+Served+Weapon+System.
http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SW_IW_XM25.pdf
http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SW_IW_M320.pdf
http://peosoldier.army.mil/mediaalerts/xm312.asp
http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SWAR_LW_LW.pdf
XM 307--project dropped
I c
-
-
But can they make the ABS GL,as i report
in the opening post?If so,pl share here
Are you blind or just have bad memory? You asked this question not too long back and I provided a whole LIST of different countries that already use ABM technology, deployed it, and USED it in BATTLE long before the SAF.
Do you really need me to pwn you again?
-
You are WRONG again.
Firstly, systems like the FN2000 were around in production long before there were smart grenades. The concept is hardly new.
And as for a smart grenade launcher that has been produced and USED in combat:
Mk 47 Striker
The Mk 47 Mod 0 or Striker 40\is a 40 mm grenade machine gun with an integrated fire control system, capable of smart programmable 40 mm shells in addition to various 'dumb' rounds.
Design
In addition to being able to fire traditional grenades like the Mk 19 grenade launcher, it can fire smart grenades that can be programmed to air burst after a set distance. A computerized sight allows the user to set this distance.
The model is currently being evaluated by the United States armed forces and the Israeli Defence Forces. It is currently in combat use by some US Special Operations forces in Afghanistan
Program status
- July 2006 - General Dynamics awarded $23 million contract for Mk 47 production.
How lionnoisy? Nothing to say now?
I wonder what excuse you are going to come up with next?
-
Don't avoid the question and ask for more examples. You asked for examples and got it now you have to answer the question.
How is STK even unique, or the first in this concept of ABM given others have already done it?
Even Rheinmetall Defence, which is a defence contractor that is much bigger then STK long has this figured out. As they said, the concept is NOTHING NEW and have their own line of 40mm ABM... the only difference it seems is that this is so chicken feat for them that they unlike STK, do not see the need to scream about it in local papers like the Straits Times to influence people like you who don't seem to know anything at all about all things military so you can start to extrapolate fantastic abilities like killing tank-optics at extreme range for it:
As the Germans said:
"The basic concept isn't entirely new. RWM Schweiz AG already developed its 35 mm Ahead ammunition for air defence more than ten years ago," says senior scientist Pierre Freymond. "The Ahead projectile contains a programmable time fuse that is inductively programmed at the muzzle. The fire control unit calculates the fuse setting time on the basis of specific parameters (such as air pressure, temperature, range and muzzle speed)."
Note, 10 years ago. STK is simply using a decade old idea.
I need
laser range finder for both calibres
Please don't demostrate your ignorance of military technology.
Why would you need a seperate range finder for both calibers? All you need is one and you shoot accordingly to the range as indicated by your sight.
Why increase weight for an extra range finder that will tell you redundant information? Do you need seperate salt shakers for your soup and fries?
With billions of defense budgets.how come there is no
dual calibres hand held weapon in US?
There is already a dual caliber weapon long in use by the US for decades:
Adding smart munitions to this is nothing new, just teaching an old dog new tricks, for some reason you seem to think that STK is the only company who knows how to do it.
If you are talking about why there isn't any smart grenade launcher in use currently, use your common sense:
Look at above proposed XM 8.Rifle plus single shot GL.Old stuff lah.
That is practical, not old. Instead of trying to figure out how to keep messing around with heavy and slow 40mm rounds, this is just a stopgap while they work with a new format, you want to mess around with stacking 40mm grenades or coming up with a clunky SSW to load them in a magazine be my guest.
What is old stuff? Trying to make old 40mm grenades "smart"? Or working to develop a new, faster, and more effective round?
Instead of just teaching new tricks to a limited 40mm grenade format, the US is researching on a new ammunition format that is up to 500 percent more capable in engaging targets then the old 40mm HEDP format.
It is obvious you have run out of examples and are just trying to twist each and every example, no matter how bad the point you create is in a weak attempt to try to show why STK even has anything on the yanks.
Unfortunately it's not working.
I mean rifle plus grenade.Rifle + shot gun is ready or soon wil be ready
for Yankees.
Another case of your not doing your homework.
This has long been in use, for some reason you seem to think it is "ready or soon wil be ready for Yankees"
What's next? You're going to ask if the AK47 is "ready or soon wil be ready for Ruskies?"
-
Air burst
self--destruct for rounds.
Besides the one or two shared by STyrann,is there any more?
More correctly the question should be "advanced firearms" concepts, are there anymore?
Firing air burst rounds is just one part of an advanced infantry weapon, what is more important if the other concepts are being implemented on not just the Squad Support level but also for the normal grunts.
Unfortunately for lionnoisy, STK is neither ahead, nor the first in this field... plenty of weapons developed by other countries are already in the game. Note that below is an not-complete list of advanced firearms being developed and produced by other nations.
Some can fire air bursting grenades, some are future-warrior capable, but they are all on par more advanced then what STK is marketing in the SSW.
Korea OICW- more powerful KE module then ST SSW as well as capable of smart grenade launching.
Australia OICW concept, using their metalstorm technology to stack 40mm rounds. The KE module again is more powerful then STK's SSW.
Note that the balance of this weapon, due to the fact that the HE module is above, rather then overslung, is superior to the front heavy SAR-21/M203, worse if the SAR-21 is using a stacked grenade launcher (technology ironically borrowed from the aussies lionnoisy tries to knock).
Israeli TAR-21 OICW variant -a modified TAR-21 rifle fitted with electronic sighting and fire control unit and tactical data interfaces.
Note the Israelis have developed smart grenades as well.
This variant once again, will have a more powerful KE module then STK's SSW.
Belgian FN2000, dual caliber, capable of firing smart grenades with FCS addon. Not surprisingly, a more powerful KE module then ST's SSW yet again.
Even the venerable M-4 has been decked to be capable of this ability, in the Land Warrior system with advanced sighting systems.
-
How lionnoisy? Want more examples?
How about the Israeli IMI MPRS system?
At Eurosatory 2006 IMI is demonstrating the progress of its Multi-Purpose Rifle System (MPRS) with the new ORION customized sight, designed to provide a ready to use, improved lethality system, utilizing standard assault rifles, advanced 40mm air-burst grenades and standard 5.56mm ammunition. Since its first introduction in 2004 the system passed several important milestones. In the coming months it is scheduled to complete type classification for the Israel Defense Forces, supporting squad level weapon systems.
MPRS uses the new ORION customized fire control and sighting system providing navigation, target acquisition, ranging, ballistic computation, ammunition interface as well as day and night capability in a single, compact 600 gr system. The MPRS can be applied to most assault weapons such as Tavor, M4, SA80, INSAS, FAMAS or any other weapon using a standard Picatiny rail.
The IMI Air Burst Ammunition is configured as a rifle grenade, a 40mm grenade for M203/AG-36 and other grenade launchers, as well as in non-lethal and intelligence applications variants below.
Embedded in a C3 system based on IMI's Warrior Compact Targetor (WACT), MPRS facilitates advanced sensor to shooter capabilities for small task forces.
Airburst 40 mm ammunition
The MPRS enables warfighters to use IMI's new 40mm air-burst grenades, at high precision, facilitating an overhead, "around the corner" or "within a window" fire for effect. When associated with IMI's new time-fused, air-burst 40mm grenades, MPRS uses a built-in communications device to set the grenade's programmable fuze to explode the grenade at the required distance and height above the target or around a corner, to achieve the desired air-burst effect.
Reconnaissance Grenade (Over the Hill)
While the 40mm high explosive airburst grenade is primary ammunition for the MPRS, the system will also incorporate other munition types, including non lethal grenades and an expendable camera fitted to a reconnaissance grenade. The grenade is fired through a ballistic trajectory toward the target, transmitting images of the target through its descent. IMI is cooperating with Israel Aircraft Industries MLM division to develop a command and control system which will be based on MPRS elements and establish effective management and control of infantry units. The system will interface with the warfighter's fire control systems, day/night observation systems (such as binoculars and recce grenades) and personal role radios.
-
5,861 posts since Jan '03
-
How about the Bulgarians?
ARCUS Co. Announces Unique 40mm Air-Burst Ammunition
ARCUS Co., the leading Bulgarian manufacturer of ammunition for 40mm grenade launchers, announces at the DSEi Exhibition the start of series production of its new product, the 40mmx46 air burst pre-fragmented ammunition for NATO-standard grenade launchers. The company is known as producer of 40x46mm low-velocity HE-pre-fragmented ammunition with self-destruction, anti-diver ammunition and others.
<!-- google_ad_section_start (name=s2 weight=.3) -->
The unique 40mm NATO air burst prefragmented ammunition utilises the "bouncing" concept - when the grenade hits the ground the nose fuze initiates a pyrotechnic composition.
-
-
GDATP Receives $16 Million Contract for MK47 Striker 40mm Grenade Machine Gun
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products [GDATP], a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), has been awarded a $16 million firm-fixed-price contract from the U.S. government for production of the MK47 MOD 0 Weapon System. Called the "STRIKER40," the MK47 weapon system is a lightweight 40mm grenade launcher with an integrated fire control system capable of firing air-bursting ammunition.
The MK47's integrated gun and fire control system is significantly more accurate than any previously fielded grenade launcher. The MK47 weapon system is capable of firing programmable air-burst ammunition, as well as all conventional high-velocity 40mm ammunition in the U.S. inventory.
General Dynamics is partnered with Raytheon (Forest, Miss.) to build the Lightweight Video System (LVS) fire control, designed by General Dynamics Canada of Ottawa, Ontario. Program administration will be conducted at General Dynamics' Burlington, Vt., facility.
General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products provides a broad range of system solutions for military and commercial applications. The company designs, develops and produces high-performance armament systems; a full range of advanced composite-based products; biological and chemical detection systems; and mobile shelter systems. More information about General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.gdatp.com.
General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, employs approximately 68,400 people worldwide and expects 2004 revenue of $19 billion. The company is a market leader in mission-critical information systems and technologies; land and expeditionary combat systems, armaments and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and business aviation.
-
FYI, RWM Schweiz AG of Rhienmetall already got the concept working over a decade ago, long before ST even came up with anything.
So what's so special about ST?
Nothing.
Another case of you tooting horns for no reason.
-
-
SSW
NAMMO.u can read from SSW thread that NAMMO,together with ST
and possibly with other co,also developing SSW products at prototype
stage,if not production stage..
The Israeli MPRS is already working and the concept is sound and proven, not to mention they save a lot of money and time by using their TAR-21 (which is a generally superior infantry weapon to the SAR-21) as a base.
Our SSW can truly be considered to be in production when we see our grunts carry and use it in the field. Not all our soldiers have recieved the SAR-21 or the SAR-21 M203, what makes you think such a specialist weapon like the SSW is anything but years away from even being issued?
-
-
Should we give lionnoisy a break?
Well he could give himself a break by actually using some basic, decent common sense before he tries to post in here. Is it any surprise that he always gets mauled?
What other results can come from the following ideas:
1. Use Fantail UAV crash into targets, repeated claims of Fantail as the smallest UAV in the world (untrue).
2. Launching F-18s off Landing Helicopter Dock Ships
3. Despite only having fired 20 rounds in his NS, he somehow tries to tell infantrymen in here that carrying the SAR-21 in one hand by scope handle as an extremely important combat tactic when "running for your life", leaving soldiers completely defenceless and unbalanced.
The real reason it seemed that lionnoisy was so insistent on it was simply because a scope handle was a feature the TAR-21 did not have but the SAR-21 did, and hence wanted to play it up even if it made no sense after realizing that the TAR-21 is practically a superior infantry weapon in almost every respect... which is not surprising given the TAR-21 is a more expensive weapon built to higher standards by the Israelis. But lionnoisy just can't accept it however.
4. Arguing that 200 ton blast rated Mandai Underground Ammunition Facility on par with Cheyenne Mountains' massive multimegaton nuclear bunker.
5. Repeatedly arguing that the Australian navy must somehow have a ship to guard each and every single mile of their 18,000 km coast as well as vast Ocean, leaving out the fact that not even the USN is capable of such a feat.
6. Claiming that a large and slow, 76m/s 40mm round is the way to go given people are looking for a better, faster and lighter solution. Apparently this is not because the 40mm is better, but simply because Singapore happens to make a lot of it and lionnoisy just cannot help but see the need to "boost" its reputation.
He does so by claiming that our locally manufactured rounds are capable of amazing feats like disabling AFV vision at extreme range and what have you not, as well as claiming that Singapore is at the frontier of developing and manufacturing smart, air bursting munitions when this is not even true given the concept is hardly new, and that other nations have developed it before we did.
Also note that some of the ST inventions he is so hot about actually use AUSTRALIAN technology, namely in the stacked grenade launcher, but he is quiet about that for some reason and tries not to play up that part.
7. Proposing the use of inline skates for our infantrymen to save fuel and gain battlefield mobility, when contradicted by experienced soldiers in here he tried repeatedly to defend his idea without adressing any of their points, as usual going about his routine of not answering the glaring holes pointed out in his theories and to keep on raising new and useless questions.
And the best one:
8: Creating a clone to support himself when he could not win in virtually all his arguments, when exposed he panicked, went crazy and started making bizzare excuses about how his account was hacked before dissappearing for a few days.
But as time has shown, he is a person that just does not learn from his mistakes, as eventually the itch will build up enough that he will just have to post something.
So tell me, not say people don't want to give him a break, he is the one that can't give himself a break and keeps pwning himself with his ineffective and dishonest behavior in here.
If he had any common sense, he can be a bit more humble and realize that Singapore's Military is not the best is alot of things and admit our limitations, but unfortunately that is utterly unthinkable to him.
To him the SAF is just another tool to further his rah-rah about Singapore, which is actually a real disgrace to the people who have done the SAF proud.
So you tell me, give this guy a break from what? His actions are a joke and against everything a real soldier stands for. There is no honour, intergity and courage in his behaviour in here.
Send Message
Reply/Quote
edit