XM25 semi-automatic grenade launcher

116
ATK presented the new self-loading hand-held grenade launcher XM-2014, which was designed for the US armed forces, during the Paris exhibition Eurosatory-25, the website reports http://www.all4shooters.com.

Creation experiments weapons This type of company began ten years ago. But even the middle of 2000-x can not be considered the beginning stories the development of such weapons, as there were earlier versions. These are assault rifles for infantrymen. A semi-automatic grenade launcher was attached to these assault rifles. To be more precise, the grenade launcher was not just attached, but was built into the small arms system. The weapon was equipped with an OICW sighting module. However, experts did not see a large potential in such weapons, considering it not only expensive and cumbersome, but also quite difficult to maintain.

In 2005, the development of a new XM8 LAR assault rifle was frozen, but the company began to develop a project of a grenade launcher with an electronic sighting system. Such a grenade launcher will allow you to strike at the enemy, who is behind temporary shelters. For use in the operation in Afghanistan such a grenade launcher was considered very appropriate.

Not only ATK, but also Heckler & Koch's together with L3 IOS had a hand in the development of the new grenade launcher. The company, indicated by the latter, developed a fire control system and a target designation segment. The system has been renamed many times over the years. The last option before the name approved today was the "Individual Airburst Weapon System" - IAWS, replacing the previous CDTE.

Developers approved the name XM-25 Individual Semi-Automatic Airburst weapon System or XM-25 ISAAS.

XM25 semi-automatic grenade launcher


The development of the system continued even after the American parliamentarians decided to cut funding for military development, worrying about reducing the growth rate of the huge US public debt.

In Afghanistan, prototypes of such weapons were used. The XM-25 ISAAS was mainly operated by the 75 Ranger Regiment and 101 Airborne Division. At the beginning of this year, the program was transferred to LRIP mode, which corresponds to the initial stage of production.

The XM-25 ISAAS is a semi-automatic grenade launcher that has a bullpup layout. The grenade launcher is powered by an 25-mm grenade with an 40-mm sleeve. A removable magazine can be “loaded” with four ammunition.



The aiming and fire control systems TA / FCS have an optical sight with double magnification, as well as a thermal sight. The system includes a laser range finder, a ballistic computer, and even a special electronic compass that calculates drift angles and heights. The weapon, among other things, is equipped with a series of sensors and a display.

The grenade, which is used in the semi-automatic XM25, has a special chip. With the help of this chip, the ammunition can be adjusted both at the target range and for the time after which the grenade will be put into action (before the direct hit at the target). The task of such parameters is carried out by means of the buttons with which the trigger is equipped.

XM25 is very effective in dealing with a lightly armed opponent hiding behind an obstacle. American soldiers called this type of grenade launcher "punitive." The name is in the spirit of the American democratizers.



Semi-automatic XM25 has a firing range that exceeds the range of M203 or M320. In addition, its accuracy is superior to many other grenade launchers used in the modern US Army. The 25x40mm grenade does not have the power that the 40x46mm-SR has, but it is precisely the accuracy and flight range that allow specialists to highly appreciate the XM25 weapon.

The developers of ATK today are engaged in the fact that they are going to create a complex using five different types of ammunition: from training (non-lethal) to anti-aircraft, high-explosive and thermobaric.

116 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    24 July 2014 09: 01
    Cool thing, just fell into the wrong hands !!!
    USA must be destroyed !!!
    1. Russian1974
      +3
      24 July 2014 09: 42
      And populated by Indians here is our goal cheers cheers laughing
      1. +10
        24 July 2014 16: 32
        I liked that the device was made smooth without protruding sharp parts, unlike right now strips, pens, hooks and other garbage, I’m not sure about low efficiency, until very little data, if reliable tactics are finalized, but still programmable grenades for a standard grenade launcher + the combined single gun sight looks more promising, and it would not be superfluous to put such a system on a standard AGS .. For all the screams about electronics, the complexity of the high cost I suggest recalling 1 war in the Persian Gulf, but there the United States killed the 5th army of the world in polygon conditions .. but because they did it with minimal losses, that it came out expensive Well, if they had arranged a classic conflict a la WWII or Irano Iraq war, then the question would have been cheaper (losses, increased expenditures of ammunition and equipment, expenses on insurance for the dead, treatment of the wounded provision of disabled people). we, for example, in 2008 (17 years have passed since 1991) in Georgia using new high-precision weapons crap in full (information on these issues is in the public domain) and all the work as always done by the infantry Vanya with Kalash and grenades in his hands, repeatedly from various military experts I heard that God forbid a night fight with the American unit of an analagic orientation they simply shoot like blind kittens due to technical advantages, it’s enough to threaten the adversary with caps, they work and slowly move forward ..
    2. 0
      24 July 2014 14: 03
      They say there are no analogues in the world. You launch a grenade and it explodes at the point where you indicated, with a rangefinder or a timer, you can get anyone behind a hill, a tree, in general in an open area with obstacles. Shrapnel style. I hope Russian developments in this regard are underway.
      1. +6
        24 July 2014 14: 07
        Quote: Max_Bauder
        They say there are no analogues in the world

        there are analogues
        XM25 Grenade Launcher and Multi-Function Rifle System

        Grenade launcher XM25 lit up in Afghanistan.


















      2. +2
        24 July 2014 15: 22
        As I remember, grenade detonation does not occur with the help of a timer, the grenade has a rev counter and the detonation site is determined by the number of revolutions times the barrel cutting step.
      3. Victor-cort
        0
        26 July 2014 19: 06
        have and are even adopted :)
    3. The comment was deleted.
  2. +3
    24 July 2014 09: 04
    Of course, using an automatic grenade launcher as the main weapon is a very interesting idea, but realizing such an idea in a metal task is problematic. In my opinion, this is a dead end direction (primarily because of the inability to create an adequate ammunition now), and hm-25 is good proof of that.
    1. +6
      24 July 2014 13: 19
      Quote: Lyapis
      Of course, using an automatic grenade launcher as the main weapon is a very interesting idea, but realizing such an idea in a metal task is problematic. In my opinion, this is a dead end direction (primarily because of the inability to create an adequate ammunition now), and hm-25 is good proof of that.

      I also do not understand why creating a separate grenade launcher platform, we decided not to bother and just made a programmable standard 40mm grenade for the grenade launcher and an aim for them (MPRS) - the same result, for less money. (Moreover, the system can be easily adapted for GP-25 \ 35, as well as barrel grenades)


      1. +1
        24 July 2014 14: 05
        Quote: And Us Rat
        the same result for less money.


        Let me argue, but you can’t program a grenade explosion for the time or range you need to hit the target exactly, which this unit has. And grenade launchers are mine in all the infantry armies of the developed countries of the World.
        1. +1
          24 July 2014 14: 09
          Quote: Max_Bauder
          Let me ask, but you can’t program a grenade explosion for a time or range ?!

          The Multifunction Shooting System (MPRS) is designed to significantly improve the accuracy and range of 40-mm rifle grenades. The system consists of integrated optics, a laser range finder and a processor, all of which are mounted in a single unit, which is mounted on any rifle using Picatinny rails. Using a touch panel mounted grenade launcher, a soldier can program special 40-mm grenades so that they explode just above the target at a distance over 250 meters. "At distances greater than 100 or 150 meters from an 40-mm grenade launcher it is very difficult to hit the target, but with this system you can shoot very precisely - at a distance over 200 meters you can put a grenade right through the window."
        2. 0
          24 July 2014 15: 54
          I clearly wrote - PROGRAMMABLE grenades, just for the standard caliber. The sight has a built-in laser rangefinder, a thermal imager and a ballistic calculator.
      2. +2
        24 July 2014 17: 21
        Something I can’t imagine is accurate
        firing from the M203. At least some rangefinders set.
        Return, as far as I remember, be healthy. You roll and
        all calculations are in vain. And at 400 m flies only if
        set the angle 30 degrees up, and the length of the direct shot
        very small. And the grenades are large - for them it is necessary to sew pouches.
        I think we have made a "budget" option only
        because of the standard cheap grenades that are stockpiled.

        Actually, the easiest way for Americans to buy their 25 mm grenades and
        make for them their own grenade launcher with their own electronics.
  3. Matt
    0
    24 July 2014 09: 13
    On OICW it looks like something very
    1. +1
      24 July 2014 10: 03
      And from him legs grow.
    2. +1
      24 July 2014 16: 53
      it is part of the Landwarrior complex. This is the same "HE" grenade launcher module hi
      1. 0
        29 July 2014 03: 28
        it is part of the Landwarrior complex. This is the same "HE" grenade launcher module


        So it’s kind of rejected because of the insufficient power of the ammunition, which gives too light fragments after the explosion in the front hemisphere. Plus questions about the cost / reliability / accuracy of measuring the distance to the target with a small laser range finder located in the electronics unit (although this problem could already be solved).
        1. +1
          30 July 2014 09: 04
          The prototype was rejected and sent back for revision. And now XM has been "finished" and now a new NOT-module is being made on its basis. hi
          By the way, the cost of ammunition is still quite high, about $ 1000 per unit, because piece production. When put on a stream, it is not clear yet.
  4. avt
    +3
    24 July 2014 09: 15
    Quote: Lyapis
    . In my opinion, this is a dead end direction (primarily because of the inability to create an adequate ammunition now), and hm-25 is good proof of that.

    Overseas boys want bigger guns. I agree, the caliber of the grenade is not impressive, but as the main weapon it’s both expensive and heavy. You should not bother with such a miracle weapon, there are normal Tula rolls 12 mm, there are quite a hand grenade launchers of 30-40 mm, and finally yesterday about a pretty nice Tula grenade launcher with quite decent dimensions and power of a firing range the article was. Somehow it looks more rational.
  5. evgenij1840
    +1
    24 July 2014 09: 32
    In the West forever gunfire will make. The smaller and more compact, the more convenient for the fighter ... And this is so, a big piece of iron.
  6. 0
    24 July 2014 09: 39
    The caliber is funny, against the Papuans only and use
    1. 0
      24 July 2014 12: 18
      Another point - a grenade can detonate without programming, but at the same time there is no open sight on the grenade launcher. It’s also some kind of stupidity, if something happens to the aiming block - the gun is completely useless, except to give it to the head
  7. padonok.71
    0
    24 July 2014 09: 52
    Why is a grenade launcher at all, of this type, an automatic reload system? There is a revolving type, there is a GMK (the most favorite). And wait a bit (yes, I know that this is a semiautomatic device), you don’t shoot anyway with your hands.
  8. +2
    24 July 2014 09: 57
    The name is in the spirit of the American democratizers.

    Can’t an article be without this? request Materiel and all?
    1. -1
      24 July 2014 11: 43
      Programmable ammunition is probably good for fighting Papuans, but what about electronic warfare systems or systems designed to remotely detonate ammunition like SPR-2M "Mercury-BM"
      1. 0
        24 July 2014 13: 30
        Quote: bmv04636
        ... or systems designed to remotely detonate SPR-2M "Mercury-BM" ammunition ...

        1. In such grenades banal programmable timer, no remote detonation.
        2. Even police sappers have a jamming system for radio fuses, these are the basics of the fight against IEDs.
        1. 0
          24 July 2014 14: 24
          speak banal and don’t be afraid whoever remotely tightens the timer and explodes when it reaches a distance of two meters from the shooter or doesn’t work at all and the ammunition of the stupid one will not fall apart. The mercury system, including those with fuses, works.
          1. 0
            24 July 2014 16: 09
            No, we are not afraid, there is no radio receiver in the grenade. Programming occurs via a wire to the contacts on the grenade body. (you can see it in the photo above). Refusal is possible only if the product is defective, as in a simple "stupid" grenade.
  9. +3
    24 July 2014 10: 10
    The main highlight of this grenade launcher, its sighting system, and its mechanics are secondary. This complex has a connection with the projectile. Those. calculates the time of detonation, which is very effective against the target behind cover. A grenade explodes in flight over a target and hits it with fragments.
    But in my personal opinion, a $ 35 shell and a $ 25 grenade launcher are overkill. And the caliber is too small to deal with, for example, equipment, even unarmored or with partial armor, even more so. Well, there is no need to even talk about the complexity, unreliability and fragility of all this "delicate" electronics in combat conditions. But this is my opinion)
    1. +2
      24 July 2014 10: 17
      In general, the history of its creation is a vicious circle. First, they reduced the caliber, for the reliability of automation, then decided to increase the accuracy, to compensate for the inefficiency of grenades, hung a smart sight. I had to make a smart grenade. Under it, I had to change the automation and again in the second round.
    2. 0
      24 July 2014 11: 44
      SPR-2M "Mercury-BM" does not sleep and no one canceled the jammers
      1. +5
        24 July 2014 15: 47
        what does the jammer have to do with it? there timer in a grenade, a timer, understand?
        the distance to the target is measured, if necessary, a plus or minus meter is added, a grenade is programmed and flies - flew as needed, counted the speed and exploded.

        What are you all with your jammers?
        1. anomalocaris
          +1
          26 July 2014 17: 52
          Well, a person likes electronic warfare ... How do you not understand? He also does not understand that this ammunition has a remote fuse, which can be controlled only by the EMP of a nuclear explosion ...
  10. +9
    24 July 2014 10: 15
    Quite a nice toy for the city, for serious showdowns the caliber is small. Especially pinned the ending about thermobaric ammunition of 25 millimeters. This is apparently an idea for hunting burrowing rodents :)
  11. -4
    24 July 2014 10: 46
    Programmable ammunition is very, very romantic)) ... you shoot yourself from afar, damned Muslims / pro-Russian separatists are dying in batches, loot wins ... And then the Russians drive the Ural with a shelter around the corner, cut in some kind of crap and the ammunition stops explode. Not a joke - a couple of days ago I immediately read an article about the commissioning of the next complex. And the day will come, and the box "Ural" will be replaced by a box in "UAZ", then it will reach the box in unloading. And they will send the XM-25 after the F-117 for an honest veteran's rest. Or they will give them to Estonia, hide in ditches.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +2
      29 July 2014 03: 41
      And then the Russians drive the Ural with a kung around the corner, cut in some kind of crap and the ammunition stops exploding. Not a joke - a couple of days ago I immediately read an article about the commissioning of the next complex.


      Thank you for the interesting comment!
      It’s good that there are so knowledgeable readers on the forum. For example, I still have never come across information on such developments. Please tell us more about
      next complex
      which blocks:
      1) measuring the distance with a laser rangefinder;
      2) the transmission of information about the range of the target by wire from the electronic module to the ammunition, while it (ammunition) is in the breech of the gun;
      3) determination of the path traveled by the grenade through the countdown of the number of revolutions that makes the grenade (rifled grenade launcher) in flight its on-board gyro?
  12. +3
    24 July 2014 11: 32
    Quote: Pazifist87
    In general, the history of its creation is a vicious circle. First, they reduced the caliber, for the reliability of automation, then decided to increase the accuracy, to compensate for the inefficiency of grenades, hung a smart sight. I had to make a smart grenade. Under it, I had to change the automation and again in the second round.

    Well, no matter how nobody reduces anything "for the reliability of automation" because the caliber was originally set back in 1989. within the framework of a document called Small Arms Master Plan, and the legs of this device grow from the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) grenade launcher module, which (OICW assembled) did not differ in its light weight and dimensions, but taking into account the requirements to have store food and From the very beginning it was clear to automatics that 25 mm was the maximum possible caliber in terms of dimensions and recoil momentum. The "smart sight" was also "conceived" back in '89 - laughing over dull mattress toppers can be as long as you like, but we are not developing anything like this, and all our "modern" developments are being repeated around the modernization and alteration of samples of the 70-80xx and even earlier ... And it comes to the ridiculous, in the mid-2000s in order to "revive" the outdated RPG-29 on "basalt" in cooperation with electronics engineers created its easel version, a kind of "light LNG" the main feature was an optical-electronic sight with automatic target tracking and automatic data calculation shooting, well, Duc, according to the designers, the then general director of "basalt" Korenkov yelled that while he was the director of no electronics at the RPG, then no one would buy it (as if they had bought it before) as a result, the first shows of this complex were only when Korenkova removed.
    Or the story with the planning module for the FAB-500,1000 M-62 is the same screaming about electronics as a result of a useless piece of iron that you can plan but can’t get there.
    1. +2
      24 July 2014 12: 26
      Well, I also wanted to write that a small caliber is for providing store power and the operation of automation. The sight became "smart" just to increase the effectiveness of a low-power grenade. I don't even laugh at "dumb mattresses".
      But you must agree private $ 25 weapons (albeit in a mass series it will be cheaper, but hardly much), just for the sake of increasing the rate of fire and a slight increase in the range of fire compared to under-barrel grenade launchers, to put it mildly strange.
      For small arms, or rather for sights, all kinds of night vision devices, thermal imaging sights, etc., we remained at the maximum of the 80s, it’s better to hide domestic collimator sights and not show them to anyone. Laser sights and IR illuminators have just begun to appear. And the United States has had all this en masse a long time ago. But compare budgets and interest in equipping armies with new weapons in the United States and the Russian Federation.
      1. -2
        24 July 2014 20: 25
        But about the budget is not necessary, your military budget is 10 times more than ours, and the personnel and equipment fleet (except for the Navy) is only 3 times larger than ours. That is, you have 3 times more money supply per person-unit than ours. And nevertheless, compare the technological support of things and our army. "Where is Zin's money"? (Budget).
        1. 0
          25 July 2014 00: 22
          Yes, you even look at the logistics and weather conditions, it’s good to rave .. and there is no belief in spending that is 10 times less than the budget they have right now .. still cry about poverty for the full picture.
          1. -2
            25 July 2014 00: 40
            Quote: max702
            Yes, you even look at the logistics and weather conditions, it’s good to rave .. and there is no belief in spending that is 10 times less than the budget they have right now .. still cry about poverty for the full picture.

            Well then, continue to look for those responsible for your troubles request
        2. anomalocaris
          0
          26 July 2014 18: 00
          your military budget is 10 times bigger than ours
          That's bullshit? If yes, then I ask to our Palestinians, we have a wonderful house on the mountain, such a cheerful, yellow color ...
  13. 555somebody555
    0
    24 July 2014 11: 35
    I heard that the Senate refused to finance these weapons, but maybe the weather has already changed or will go for export.
  14. -3
    24 July 2014 11: 55
    I remember that during the NATO aggression on Serbia, many tomahawks were baffled with the help of elementary jammers.
    1. +2
      24 July 2014 12: 10
      Quote: bmv04636
      I remember that during the NATO aggression on Serbia, many tomahawks were baffled with the help of elementary jammers.

      What kind of interference? What are you carrying? Are you up to date with TERCOM?
      1. 0
        24 July 2014 13: 27
        On the other hand, it imposes a number of restrictions - for example, TERCOM is ineffective when flying over deserts or snow-covered tundra. The terrain should include a maximum of contrasting objects (hills, roads and glades, railway embankments, settlements). The route is laid in such a way as to avoid open water spaces (lakes, estuaries of large rivers, etc.) on the way of the rocket - otherwise, this may lead to critical malfunctions in the rocket’s navigation system.
        1. +2
          24 July 2014 13: 43
          Quote: bmv04636
          I remember that during the NATO aggression on Serbia, many tomahawks were baffled with the help of elementary jammers.

          What kind of interference?
          1. -7
            24 July 2014 14: 26
            to the point of banality, everything is simple, clever and cunning Jews are once again being bred for grandmothers "light elves"
            1. +2
              24 July 2014 14: 28
              Quote: bmv04636
              to the point of banality, everything is simple, clever and cunning Jews are once again being bred for grandmothers "light elves"

              I repeat the question: "What kind of interference?" Leave the nonsense about the light elves for the girls near the entrance. This portal is called "Military Review" if you haven’t learned yet.
              1. -4
                24 July 2014 14: 35
                the more complex the weapon, the higher the qualifications for its maintenance and more sterile conditions. The Internet is filled with videos of how rockets drop out of javilings.
                As for the interference, I remember everybody was angry over the inflatable S-300 and T-72, if desired, we will inflate the village to you.
                1. +2
                  24 July 2014 14: 38
                  Quote: bmv04636
                  As for the interference, I remember everybody was angry over the inflatable S-300 and T-72, if desired, we will inflate the village to you.

                  I repeat the question. Quote: bmv04636 I remember during the NATO aggression on Serbia, many tomahawks were confused with the help of elementary jammers.
                  What kind of interference?
                  1. 0
                    24 July 2014 14: 51
                    The author clearly smoked something heavy and narcotic. Very selective nonsense. The author is completely unaware of Schwarzkopf’s order of February 1, 1991 on the complete prohibition of the launch of these cruise missiles in Iraq due to their complete inefficiency. 22 years have passed - and most of the authors still have not heard about the existence of an order caused by a small reason - by this time, 66% of the missiles launched by Iraqi air defense, and the rest did not hit the target.
                    The myths about omnipotence of Tomahawk are especially clearly visible when you begin to disassemble each fought and fired submarine with the results of its shooting. These results are not much advertised in the West (and ours), because they show only the mythical essence of these cruise missiles.
                    In order to defend against the Tomahawks, it is enough to have an air defense of the level of Iraqi air defense of the 1991 model.

                    If anyone has a desire, then they can read about all the US Navy submarines that fought and used Tomahawks. Due to the large number of boats that fought, the results of the shooting, in which many boats participated, I tried to smear between all the boats that were shooting then.
                    You can read all the military campaigns of American submarines starting with the first "SSN-724" here: http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-10-0-00000003-000-0-0
                    There, you can read the links starting with "SSN-688", because boats up to moose were not used in battle, although they went on military campaigns with them.

                    By the way, it was the ineffectiveness of the Tomahawks that caused the US to abandon its attack on Syria. And "SSN-724" is indicated because it officially completed the first, after World War II, military campaign, from which the military campaigns of World War III began to be counted in the United States. And the link lists all military campaigns made by American submarines starting from the very first.
                    There are also descriptions of military campaigns of English submarines who fired Tomahawks. They can be found here:
                    http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-10-0-00000002-000-0-0

                    All information on military campaigns and shooting received from the United States. And the results are a joint assessment of the United States and the attacked country made after the end of the war.
                  2. 0
                    24 July 2014 15: 13
                    I repent, the professor simply slipped information from an amateur radio operator on the internet who offered an electrical circuit, which, according to his statement, reduced the accuracy of axes.
                    1. +1
                      24 July 2014 15: 30
                      Quote: bmv04636
                      I repent, the professor simply slipped information from an amateur radio operator on the internet who offered an electrical circuit, which, according to his statement, reduced the accuracy of axes.

                      OBS !!! I thought so.
                      1. 0
                        24 July 2014 15: 51
                        And now for you questions about this wonderful weapon:
                        1. The cost of this wonderful weapon.
                        2. The cost of ammunition for this wonderful weapon.
                        3. The cost of maintenance and who the technician engineer will conduct it
                        4. The effectiveness of this apparatus to the ratio of material costs.
                2. -2
                  24 July 2014 16: 17
                  What qualifications? Any today's teenager who grew up with an iPhone instead of a nipple will figure out the program of this device in 5 minutes, without any help.
                  1. +1
                    24 July 2014 16: 56
                    do you think then and equipment for aircraft maintenance is not needed.
                  2. anomalocaris
                    0
                    26 July 2014 18: 09
                    Yeah. Is any teenager able to figure out which chip is buggy?
      2. anomalocaris
        0
        26 July 2014 18: 05
        In the know, Prffesor, in the know. And about GPS too ...
  15. Alexander.B
    +2
    24 July 2014 11: 59
    What's the difference? These gunsmiths are great help for igrodelov - in Battlefield 3 and 4, these guns are very handy - no need to invent futuristic blasters)))
    1. 0
      29 July 2014 03: 58
      These gunsmiths are great help for igrodelov - in Battlefield 3 and 4, these guns are very handy - no need to invent futuristic blasters)))


      That's just in all these games, when using the HE OICW / XM-25, it is enough to look through a computerized sight at the target, shoot - and the grenade flies straight into it, probably directed by the force of the shooter's thought, and explodes before reaching the target exactly a meter. There is, however, a toy "Soldier of Fortune 2", where the subject needs to persistently measure the distance, then make 4 values ​​of the corrections ... in short, each shot is a mini-game. The question arises: why, in fact, this system is self-charging? Make 5 shots with one scope? Isn't it easier to throw one, but an impressive grenade?
  16. +1
    24 July 2014 12: 21
    Quote: Hammer 75
    ...
    USA must be destroyed !!!


    Totally agree!
    ASKED FOR YOURSELF !!!

    And, what is especially interesting, recently came across an article (alas, did not keep the link) of an Indian leader from the ancient tribes living in the United States - so he just said about this "the United States as a state must be destroyed" !!!
    1. -1
      24 July 2014 13: 34
      Quote: Epizikl
      Quote: Hammer 75
      ...
      USA must be destroyed !!!

      Totally agree!
      ASKED FOR YOURSELF !!!

      Proceed !!! fellow I have already stocked up with beer and nuts, I'm waiting for the show !!! drinks
      (And the whole of China, along with me, they are happy to eat up both wounded animals, both the winner and the loser ... if there is anything left to eat, the thermonuclear weapon usually does not provide for trophies)
      1. 0
        24 July 2014 16: 04
        Well, little by little, the "light elves" are beginning to move, but recently they have had constant hysteria and began sanctions and sanctions. their own grave and dripping with their sanctions.
        1. 0
          24 July 2014 20: 36
          Even if their economy collapses, a third of a billion Americans will not go anywhere, Russia has gone through the "dashing nineties" and is gaining strength again, and they will survive in the same way, and will rise again. Moreover, they have already been in "this movie", the "great depression" of the 30s. Only if the fall of the USSR dragged Eastern Europe with it, then the fall of the United States would drag away three-quarters of the world.
          1. +1
            24 July 2014 21: 50
            I do not agree. The Jews will survive such a collapse if there is. We survived because there were no snickers. With such consumption, God forbid, you can suddenly fall to the bottom and you can crash to death.
          2. anomalocaris
            +1
            26 July 2014 18: 14
            States are not Russia. You confuse very different approaches to life and ways of this. Where Russian only swears and rolls up his sleeves, the American will die (not all, but most).
  17. +1
    24 July 2014 13: 26
    For city police operations it’s quite suitable, for a war I doubt the mud. What if the batteries do not deliver on time? And without them, how will the sighting system work? And how about -20C, how much battery power is enough?
    Beautiful of course, but doubt takes me something.
    1. +4
      24 July 2014 15: 59
      you see, what’s the matter ... with such an approach as yours — the losing side will sit in the mud, and the enemy will be with the overwhelming superiority of UAVs in the air, shoot programmable and high-precision ammunition from a distance of 500-700 m, and so it’s not You’ll answer, and with a grin to look at the thermal imaging sights of an opponent floundering in the mud, running in a Galim cam with Kalash, and all the high-tech equipment - a radio from the radio operator.

      That's where battery saving is!
      1. +2
        25 July 2014 20: 20
        I do not understand your irony.
        In a war, all sides can sit in mud and "bloody mess". The weapon's dependence on "outside electricity" makes it highly vulnerable.
        It's clear?
        AGS-17 does not need batteries; an experienced shooter gets into the window pane.
      2. anomalocaris
        +1
        26 July 2014 18: 19
        What are UAVs? An UAV is great with respect to some Papuan, with respect to a more or less serious army, all UAVs and GPS will end in the very first hour of the war. Here is such a banal technical fact.
    2. Icr
      +2
      25 July 2014 02: 36
      Quote: Chukcha
      For city police operations it’s quite suitable, for a war I doubt the mud. What if the batteries do not deliver on time? And without them, how will the sighting system work? And how about -20C, how much battery power is enough?
      Beautiful of course, but doubt takes me something.


      Are you seriously? Are tanks suitable for war? They need fuel and shells! Definitely only suitable for police operations! And for war, only spears and a bow with arrows!
      1. anomalocaris
        0
        26 July 2014 18: 23
        But seriously? In our Palestinians, there may be -50, and if I go to the taiga, then the guys with their sophisticated electronics will have to stomp behind me, and there they are still ...
  18. +1
    24 July 2014 13: 46
    Hmm, maybe ours are not so wrong that they are in no hurry to weight weapons with "smart" electronics? If the enemy uses some kind of jammer, you will end up under a nuclear strike, in the end. And the sophisticated sighting system will order to live for a long time, and you have already forgotten how to use the front sight completely and you may not have them on your "wunderwaffe". What are you going to do? I heard a story, by the way, how the Americans in the tube electronics of the MIG-25, stolen by the traitor Belenko to Japan, spotted a military trick. Say, in a nuclear explosion, EMP will "kill" the transistors, and lamps - at least "henna". True or not, I don’t know what I bought, so I’m selling it. By the way, who knows how the laser rangefinder will behave in fog, rain, snow (I mean the veracity of its testimony)?
    1. anomalocaris
      +1
      26 July 2014 18: 30
      Truth. If the lamp is not turned on, there will be nothing at all, during operation there is about a 30% chance that it will burn out. The microchip is guaranteed to fail.
      I am also extremely skeptical of any electronic stray. For one simple reason - if she gets it, I can’t fix it on my knee. And any complex technique has the property to turn up ...
  19. +1
    24 July 2014 13: 48
    Quote: Chukcha
    For city police operations it’s quite suitable, for a war I doubt the mud. What if the batteries do not deliver on time? And without them, how will the sighting system work? And how about -20C, how much battery power is enough? Of course it's beautiful, but doubts take me something.

    They shouted the same thing when the first NVDs appeared, then collimators, etc., look from the other side - what if the cartridges do not deliver? maybe then, well, in figs this arrow with a checker is easier - neither batteries nor cartridges nor what is needed? Already a long time ago, even in civilian circulation, there are batteries that work normally and in minus, how much is enough? for a long time since the electronics is turned on only to search for the aim of aiming and firing.
  20. 0
    24 July 2014 13: 55
    Quote: padonok.71
    Why is a grenade launcher at all, of this type, an automatic reload system? There is a revolving type, there is a GMK (the most favorite). And wait a bit (yes, I know that this is a semiautomatic device), you don’t shoot anyway with your hands.

    Someone tells me that the revolver type doesn’t really dock with the programming system, and self-loading is still more convenient for the store, with such dimensions of the shot it’s only possible to block the pump, but at the very least, and the automation eats up some of the recoil, which is also good.
    1. padonok.71
      0
      24 July 2014 15: 47
      That’s why this karkalyka is more convenient than GM94? Or on the GM can not be hung block DPP? And how many pluses. Weight, mobility, simplicity, reliability, a wide range of shots. Yes, and 43 against 40 - a trifle, but nice. And so on. Both will have the same rate of fire. Time then it takes the car to program the blasting, but there are no intuitive interfaces yet.
      And about revolving, what prevents it?
      And about the convenience of self-loading. Why are they more convenient? About recoil is not necessary.
    2. 0
      24 July 2014 16: 03
      Quote: gross kaput

      Oh, someone tells me that the revolver type doesn’t really dock with the programming system

      Yes, everything is docked there - the projectile is programmed by induction coils, there are no obstacles in the revolving circuit to this.
      1. 0
        24 July 2014 16: 27
        Then such a small projectile is not needed, then such brains are not needed for an accurate hit, then the XM-25 is not needed. Then someone will not beat off the money invested in this project.
  21. 0
    24 July 2014 14: 53
    Let us mark such articles as advertising.
  22. padonok.71
    +1
    24 July 2014 16: 01
    And what else I thought. Practical amerikashki, probably wanted to "beat off" a little denyuzhku with the failed OICW.
  23. 0
    24 July 2014 16: 06
    Any questions, let smart people answer them

    1. The cost of this wonderful weapon.
    2. The cost of ammunition for this wonderful weapon.
    3. The cost of maintenance and who the technician engineer will conduct it
    4. The effectiveness of this apparatus to the ratio of material costs.
    5. A fighter from this installation will be guarded by at least one other fighter.
    1. 0
      24 July 2014 16: 24
      1. So far, like $ 25000, but I'm not working in the Pentagon)
      2. 35 dollars.
      3. No data. But from my own experience I know that it does not require any expenses more than conventional weapons. But! But in the case of normal functioning of the sighting system. All brains are built on microprocessors that sit on printed circuit boards. Not subject to repair. Those. if something in it goes wrong or burns out, the repair is clearly not in the field.
      4. No data. How effective is it to throw $ 35 for targets behind cover (either single or heavily crowded, due to weak grenade charge) in no way armored?
      5. Yeah, and to support the handles, that would not fall and break, God forbid.
      1. +2
        24 July 2014 16: 58
        This grenade launcher was tested in Afghanistan for several years.
        And, according to reviews, with an incredible effect. The soldiers claimed
        that of all the new products of recent years, this is a real "hit".
        After one shot above the heads behind the militants -
        the fire ceased from there and went there to inspect the dead and wounded.
        After the withdrawal of units from Afghanistan, the following questionnaires were distributed to the soldiers:
        weapons / equipment useful / of little use, etc.
        XM25 - was always in the first place, as a very effective weapon.
        1. 0
          24 July 2014 17: 12
          how much the developer from slobbering (forgive those from lobbying). As I understand, Afghanistan has a dry climate, where full-fledged tests. As I understand electronics, a capricious lady is either hot, sometimes cold, sometimes wet, sometimes dusty, sometimes electromagnetic fields interfere.
          1. 0
            24 July 2014 23: 00
            What climate fell into that and experienced. Would there be a jungle, would experience
            in wet.
      2. 0
        24 July 2014 16: 59
        but how this device is protected from interference. Electronics is sensitive to electromagnetic pulses.
        1. -1
          24 July 2014 22: 58
          Military electronics are not consumer goods. Therefore, it is so expensive and worth it. Her pack
          in special cases. Contrary to popular belief, electronics is more reliable than mechanics.
          First, the tank burns down, and then its comp.
          1. 0
            25 July 2014 17: 12
            do not tell on tanks aircraft several duplicate devices, but here it is unlikely
  24. 0
    24 July 2014 16: 23
    Quote: padonok.71
    what else I thought. Practical amerikashki, probably wanted to "beat off" a little denyuzhku with the failed OICW.

    Well, it’s not without it, the buckshot money wasn’t small - they should report back to Congress, and there’s at least some excuse.
    Quote: bmv04636
    The cost of this wonderful weapon.

    Initially, at the final stage of the OICW program, the cost of the entire complex was planned to be 10000, the cost of a grenade 45, after budding the XM-25 flickered to 25000 - but the source of trust did not inspire.
    Quote: bmv04636
    4. The effectiveness of this apparatus to the ratio of material costs.

    I think even the life of one fighter is worth it, given the fact that it is claimed that entering the window from a distance of 500 m is quite adequate.
    Quote: psiho117
    Yes, everything is docked there - the projectile is programmed by induction coils,

    Is the coil located around the chamber? Yes, and remember where the legs grow, why the hell to fence a garden with a revolving scheme when there is almost a ready-made semiautomatic device? Well, such little things as the reload speed, and the transverse dimensions apart from the normal descent also cost a lot.
    1. padonok.71
      0
      24 July 2014 16: 30
      Do not evade! :-) About GM answer!
    2. 0
      24 July 2014 16: 40
      Quote: gross kaput
      Coil, then go around the chamber

      Such a problem, horror. Is it so difficult to put it in a drum? Automation will probably be more complicated.
      Quote: gross kaput
      Well, such little things as the reload speed, and the transverse dimensions apart from the normal descent also cost a lot.

      costs nothing when jamming automation)
      Vertical dimensions will probably be more important. Shooting is carried out either from the knee or lying down and because of the shelter. The Americans, by the way, standing shooting is not provided for under the charter, as a regular one.
      IMHO, without automation, it would be possible to send more powerful charges with the same accuracy to the same range. With the same sighting system. Although perhaps recoil would not allow firing on the move for example.
      1. 0
        24 July 2014 17: 16
        Quote: Pazifist87
        costs nothing when jamming automation)

        A machine is a lot in this situation? maybe you don’t need to exaggerate already? and then with such logic, as I said, it’s much easier to equip infantry with checkers - there’s nothing to wedge in and batteries are not needed.
        1. 0
          25 July 2014 10: 15
          I agree. Automation is very good. But is the price too high? The increase in mass, cost, and most importantly - the reduction in caliber and mass of grenades, as a result of which it was necessary to increase accuracy. As an experimental development, it’s very interesting. Stand for testing new technologies related to shell programming in the barrel. But as a mass weapon, this grenade launcher is unlikely to ever take root even in the American army. It is too narrow-minded. Only manpower and only not protected. It turns out some kind of ultra-long-range shotgun.
  25. 0
    24 July 2014 17: 11
    Quote: padonok.71
    Do not evade! :-) About GM answer!

    Yes, I don’t evade, I think everything is clear here, the amers already had a practically completed grenade launcher, but here the OICW program was turned off and the ХМ25 appeared, so in this particular case the reason why they didn’t revolve or the magazine was meaningless is clear. If we would have undertaken such a project, I think that Tula would have taken it and definitely would have laid the basis of GM94. If my opinion interests me, I couldn’t shoot from it, I twisted it and clicked it in my hands - I didn’t like it, especially reloading back and forth instead of the usual in the pump back and forth.
    1. padonok.71
      0
      24 July 2014 17: 57
      Senior! Deadly resentment!
      But seriously, GM is the best thing ever. There are a lot of merits. Of the shortcomings - the sight, the butt and then, so the predrirki. And you get used to kinematics in 2-3 trenches and so it is even more convenient. All the "breaks" were not near. And another plus, having 2 pieces. per group (8 snouts), you can completely abandon the GPshek. In short - I just fell in love with this mechanism.
      1. 0
        24 July 2014 18: 41
        Well, my don’t know, as I said already, I couldn’t shoot, I just turned it in my hands, so I described my first impressions, if they had changed if they had had to use it, it’s only Allah who knows.
        1. padonok.71
          0
          24 July 2014 21: 08
          Allah is great - he will enlighten you. Seriously - try it!
  26. 0
    24 July 2014 17: 13
    Quote: Pazifist87
    Such a problem, horror. Is it so difficult to put it in a drum? Automation will probably be more complicated.

    Can you imagine the size of such a drum for at least 6 shots? and its constructive execution?
    1. padonok.71
      0
      24 July 2014 18: 02
      Eto - yes. But I think it’s possible to fill grenades along the pseudo-barrel at the moment of passage. As delirium.
  27. Berezin alex
    0
    24 July 2014 17: 27
    The right thing. It would be nice to get a sample of this weapon and its ammunition. I think the Taliban would agree to sell it
  28. 0
    24 July 2014 17: 45
    Quote: Berezin Alex
    It would be nice to get a sample of this weapon and its ammunition. I think the Taliban would agree to sell it

    Meaning? the principle of operation has been known for a long time; in tank guns from the 90s the Aynet system has been used, the main problem here is not how it is arranged, but how to do it i.e. lack of technology.
    1. Berezin alex
      +1
      24 July 2014 19: 11
      Take a look at the used elemental base, conduct tests at the training ground and compare the effectiveness of target destruction compared to the VOG-17 and VOG-25 grenades. The weapon is very interesting in its concept and can be very useful in urban battles. Our generals are preparing for a classic war with thousands of tanks and planes, a front line, and it will be necessary to fight in cities with numerous groups of terrorists and saboteurs
      1. padonok.71
        0
        24 July 2014 21: 51
        If the device for programming the shot, then we have none of this, we don't even have any developments. And the "shooters" themselves, there are better.
        And after the first Chechen war, there was "muddied" at the top. An example is the second, Georgian. And Crimea, in general, is to pass in komuchi at the right time.
  29. +3
    24 July 2014 22: 21
    Quote: Berezin Alex
    Sneak used element base

    And will it give you? with the same success, you can disassemble a mobile phone and try to release an analogue at the Mukhosky Radio Plant, what do we get in the end? a non-working radio station the size of a cabinet and a battery of the same size, it all depends on technologies that we don’t have and no one will just give, we need a normal state policy in terms of high technologies, we must provide university graduates with normal conditions so that they don’t go to managerial brokers, and by profession (seen a lot on Basalt - many students came to practice with interest but looking at the salary and lack of social conditions after graduation went anywhere just not in the design bureau), negotiates with China, restore the scientific and technological revolution, and not pump up a personal pension fund Chubais in Rusnano and do not build a cottage Medvedev in Skolkovo.
    1. padonok.71
      0
      24 July 2014 23: 26
      ++++++++++ !!!!!!!!!
  30. Adelman
    0
    24 July 2014 22: 42
    RPGs are better, more reliable.
  31. 0
    24 July 2014 22: 48
    Interestingly, an alternative is possible? To make a grenade for GM 94 or RG 50 as old anti-aircraft systems, with an adjustable detonation range by simple rotation of the belt. Add optics with a range finder and scales up to 200m, measure the range, manually set the distance, insert it into the barrel and shoot it over the enemy (in the window, loophole, etc.)
    Naturally, it will turn out slower than with the given XM25, but it is unlikely to instantly capture the target. The soldier needs to lean out to measure the range, and then click the buttons in the shelter to program the desired distance of detonation, or to observe the target in the sight, doing the same without looking and risking to get a bullet. We would also have to pop out, and then twist the grenade belt to the desired distance, spending a little more time loading the weapons.
    But this requires only a simple (for our time) mechanical grenade and a sight with a rangefinder, against an expensive programming unit and grenades with a "smart" electromechanical filling.
  32. Bowless
    0
    24 July 2014 23: 07
    AGS 17, 30, 40 compensate for the inaccuracy by wink
    1. Victor-cort
      0
      26 July 2014 18: 48
      Quote: Unrestrained
      AGS 17, 30, 40 compensate for the inaccuracy by

      This is a weapon of different tactical level ... and very different ... and for different tasks.
  33. +2
    25 July 2014 00: 12
    Quote: Adelman
    RPGs are better, more reliable.

    and a nuclear mine is even more reliable - no need to compare the incomparable.
    Quote: Marssik
    type of old anti-aircraft systems,

    These systems use remote tubes designed to slow down in tens of seconds, they are based on a spiral pyrotechnic moderator, it is it that is placed in the rotary ring, in the best scenario, the accuracy of such a moderator is + \ - 0,5 sec, with an initial grenade speed of 90 m / s accuracy will be plus minus a kilometer. For amers, however, the counting is carried out not by time but by the number of grenade revolutions, the path traveled by the grenade in one revolution is unchanged and does not depend on the speed drop, resulting in an accuracy of detonation at the level of centimeters.
    1. 0
      25 July 2014 14: 54
      It can be done on a different principle, even on a conventional spring fuse.
      1. Victor-cort
        0
        26 July 2014 16: 16
        and think about it?
  34. 0
    25 July 2014 10: 23
    By the way, the consequences of an atomic explosion cannot also be discounted, and does the American army seem to exist for a big war?
    I am for electronics in weapons, but on condition that the weapon remains combat-ready and quite effective without it. Those. if the collimator is sour, do not throw the machine out and continue to shoot with a mechanical sight.
    1. 0
      25 July 2014 12: 20
      And if you beat it with a crowbar? and move the tank?
      But seriously, the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) of tactical nuclear weapons under standard conditions of its use (ground or low altitude) has a small radius not exceeding the radii of the main attacking factors, i.e. when you are flattened by a shock wave or incinerated by light radiation, then the sight will work deeply for you or not, and if you still manage to get into the hole, then you will be more than excited about the glow in the darkness of your own body, which acquired such a fun feature thanks to penetrating radiation. The EMP has significant power only when strategic ammunition is used with high-altitude detonation (from tens to hundreds of kilometers), but only when strategic weapons are used will you be even more likely to use an idle scope. In addition, there are stanag on combat electronics - standards according to ours, which stipulate protection against EMP of a certain power.
  35. +1
    25 July 2014 12: 20
    Quote: And Us Rat
    But about the budget is not necessary, your military budget is 10 times more than ours, and the personnel and equipment fleet (except for the Navy) is only 3 times larger than ours. That is, you have 3 times more money supply per person-unit than ours. And nevertheless, compare the technological support of things and our army. "Where is Zin's money"? (Budget).


    Oops, but what did Israel admit at the end that it had nuclear weapons in its arsenal, and reflected in its budget the costs of its maintenance?
  36. 0
    25 July 2014 12: 43
    Well, here you can add the Navy and military space and much more, but it is also true that the classic answered the question of how things are in Russia - "they steal!"
  37. +1
    25 July 2014 15: 43
    Quote: Marssik
    It can be done on a different principle, even on a conventional spring fuse.

    we are talking about a grenade with an extremely small radius of destruction, in order for it to be effective, the detonation point must coincide with the required one as close as possible, within tens of centimeters, otherwise there will be a useless clapper, the only way that can provide such accuracy is to count the revolutions, once again, the number of revolutions per unit of track is the only CONSTANT ammunition parameter on the trajectory and it depends solely on the pitch of the barrel rifling. Why do you think the Americans went this way? Considering the fact that electronic small-sized timers exist for a long time with an accuracy of milliseconds? Indeed, on the principle of time dilation, it is easier to make a fuse, since it is enough to get by with one tiny circuit with a match head and a small capacitor charged just before a shot, but instead they greatly complicate the design by introducing a gyroscope or an accelerometer into it? And it's simple - the flight time of a grenade to a target located at a certain distance is not constant and depends on a dozen reasons - starting from the initial speed of a particular grenade of a particular batch and ending with temperature, pressure and humidity, using even the most accurate electronics to slow down, we will get misses according to the range of detonation in meters at the declared distance of firing at point targets up to 550 meters.
    1. anomalocaris
      0
      26 July 2014 18: 50
      A modern solid-state "either a gyroscope or an accelerometer" is just the size of a match head.
  38. 0
    25 July 2014 15: 58
    I agree, this method of calculating the flight range is very interesting. At short range it is quite suitable, and here is just such a case. But it turns out that all these tricks are forced? Those. most of the development time and money was spent on improving the efficiency of a small charge, and it is so small due to the initial concept of an automatic (self-loading) grenade launcher, the layout of which initially determined its entry into the automatic grenade launcher system.
    I mean, when they abandoned the complex, what's the point of developing a grenade launcher in the same limitations? In addition to trying to at least somehow pay back the already invested funds.
    Surely with all these developments, you can make a more effective weapon "from scratch"?
    Although the Americans know better, for example, I don’t know the concept of using the XM-25, maybe they need it directly and ...
    1. anomalocaris
      0
      26 July 2014 18: 52
      In fact, the XM-25 grenade itself is a hypertrophied fuse in the body.
  39. 0
    25 July 2014 16: 28
    It’s not so simple and straightforward, no doubt one of the factors behind the appearance of the XM25 was the desire to somehow justify itself for the money invested in OICW, but do not forget that the ACSW program was running in parallel, which, although masked and castrated, has survived to this day, within the framework of this program the XM307 easel grenade launcher was developed for the same 25mm ammunition (but it is possible with a larger n / s since the declared range is much larger than the KhM25 and it is difficult to explain this with one barrel extension).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCAiQyuWfOk
    Now it concerns the caliber - if the new 25mm grenades are equal in effectiveness or superior to the old 40mm, then it makes no sense to increase their caliber - since a smaller caliber is a larger ammunition load, less weapon mass and lower recoil. In general, the entire path of development of weapons is a path to a compromise between different parameters.
    1. padonok.71
      0
      25 July 2014 18: 04
      How so? Is 25 more effective than 40 mm? This is not a "hole-making", here you need power. And on small calibers how to achieve it?
      Pro 3600 max. Acsw has a range of lodges, a maximum of 1250 (the norgs have somehow mentioned). But the alteration in .50 Browning, under-machine gun is a valuable feature. But she didn’t go, something like a machine.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  40. 0
    25 July 2014 18: 23
    Quote: padonok.71
    And on small calibers, how will he achieve it?

    The question is about backfill - what will be the return when fired from a GM-94 if you increase the initial speed of a grenade based on a maximum range of 900 m?
    Quote: padonok.71
    This is not a "hole-making", here you need power.

    Yeah, that's what they said in 1960. many comrades in the Pentagon about M406 calling its supporters "beach people", and where does the power? we are not talking about an OFS howitzer projectile, but about a fragmentation air detonation, in which a priori the main factor of destruction is ready-made or semi-ready lethal elements and the main goal is not the destruction of buildings and structures, but the infantry, but in those wars that mattress mats are often seen even without NIB. Okay, good with you, but it's time to get ready to dig potatoes
    1. padonok.71
      0
      25 July 2014 22: 44
      No, I still disagree. All the beauty of the 406go, AGSs and the like, in a low speed, low pace and a relatively large grenade (this is what I meant, by power - more explosives, GUE or VA, for a thermobar). And this "svirestelka" turns out. And it is not yet known how this pragrammator works, as long as only Americans extol themselves. And the same norgi (to whom the cunning Americans tried to "sell" this miracle) politely replied: "As soon as there is money, it will be necessary."
      If GMK adapted to 900m, then I think the return will not grow significantly. Established 600, at 85 m / s. At 900, there should be about 100 m / s, the trunk is authentic and strengthen the fur. locking, barrel, etc., the mass will increase, compensating for the momentum, add a shock absorber. In short, you can, but why? Only spoil such a machine.
      PS: it's too early to dig this "damn power", but if you need it -
      Potato is evil
      should be
      taken out
      and devoured
      it.
      Good luck in your jihad.
  41. 0
    25 July 2014 20: 13
    Quote: IcR
    Quote: Chukcha
    For city police operations it’s quite suitable, for a war I doubt the mud. What if the batteries do not deliver on time? And without them, how will the sighting system work? And how about -20C, how much battery power is enough?
    Beautiful of course, but doubt takes me something.


    Are you seriously? Are tanks suitable for war? They need fuel and shells! Definitely only suitable for police operations! And for war, only spears and a bow with arrows!


    Seriously, quite. Tanks are well suited for war — armor, weapons, and all that’s so modern .... But for police operations, tanks are not needed, well, except for some fringes hijacking other tanks to have fun.
    As for this complex, I will say "imkhovo" - in war you can use any weapon, even a slingshot, and this X25 too, but I have doubts about the combat effectiveness in "field conditions".
    And no one has yet clarified this.
  42. dzau
    0
    26 July 2014 03: 02
    Quote: Chukcha
    in war you can use any weapon, even a slingshot, and this X25 too, but I have doubts about the combat effectiveness in the "field conditions".
    And no one has yet clarified this.

    And there is nothing to clarify. With the current cost of production and operation - stupidly not enough money.
    1. Victor-cort
      0
      26 July 2014 16: 39
      Quote: dzau
      And there is nothing to clarify. With the current cost of production and operation - stupidly not enough money.

      an old song ... once it was claimed that machine guns would ruin the country of that army in which they would be adopted .... those countries have long been gone (and machine guns are not to blame for this) but there are machine guns.
      1. dzau
        0
        28 July 2014 10: 52
        Quote: Victor-Cort
        when it was claimed that machine guns would ruin the country of the army in which they would be adopted

        Maybe. In the future, with the cheapening of the production of high-precision BP and the aiming system itself.

        With the existing price tag of $ 25k apiece, it’s not clear what, each. a shot from which costs under $ 30 is a considerable bust. Unless for narrow application.

        I will not insist, maybe I'm wrong.
  43. +1
    26 July 2014 12: 14
    Quote: Earnest
    Programmable ammunition is very, very romantic)) ... And then the Russians drive the Ural with a kung around the corner, cut in some kind of crap and the ammunition stops exploding. Not a joke - a couple of days ago I immediately read an article about the commissioning of the next complex. And the day will come, and the box "Ural" will be replaced by a box in "UAZ", then it will reach the box in unloading ...

    For pro-Israeli Israeli minusers:
    "The complex of electronic warfare" Rtut-BM "(production since 2011, http://kret.com/ru/about/) is intended to suppress communications and radar systems. In addition, the tasks of the complex include the protection of personnel, equipment and "Rtut-BM" complex is a further development of the electronic warfare "Rtut-B" machine, developed several decades ago. From its predecessor, the new machine has retained some functions, including the ability to affect the radio fuses of enemy ammunition. " Here is a photo from MAKS 2013.

    Based on the foregoing, I publish an ad: "I am changing 10 XM25 to 1" plus "to the reputation on topwar.ru" laughing
    I understand that these complexes are still few, that they are transportable, and so on - but the first computers were also built near the pond so that the cooling could cope))
    1. Victor-cort
      0
      26 July 2014 16: 25
      Quote: Earnest
      Based on the foregoing, I publish an announcement: "I am changing 10 XM25 for 1" plus "to the reputation on topwar.ru

      And grow your reputation. for there is no radio fuse on the KhM25 .... and by the way, the installation you brought up to date is 30 years old ... like all Russian weapons. for there are no new developments, only that poorly was developed in the USSR is used.
      1. anomalocaris
        +1
        26 July 2014 19: 00
        You're wrong. There are developments, the question is how many of them are in the troops and how much are they mastered?
    2. 0
      31 July 2014 10: 27
      I gave you a plus as you asked.

      But let me cool your enthusiasm a bit
      jammers. Their active antennas "glow" themselves
      for the adversary. These war machines are easy to pinpoint on their
      radiation, therefore the Americans (as you saw in many campaigns)
      first they prey on air defense and electronic warfare equipment for a long time and only then begin
      bomb the troops. To detect air defense and electronic warfare are called UAVs, causing
      fire on yourself. And here is the problem: if you hide and do not shoot them down, it takes a picture
      (or attacks himself), and if you shoot down - you will betray yourself ... It is debatable what to do?
  44. 0
    26 July 2014 12: 28
    Quote: padonok.71
    If the device for programming the shot, then we have none of this, we don't even have any developments. And the "shooters" themselves, there are better.

    You just don't know. For example, here is a quote from the description of the T-90 on the unforgettable "pedivikia":
    "The T-90 is capable of firing a wide range of ammunition of four types - armor-piercing sub-caliber 3BM42, 3BM46, 3BM42M (partially) cumulative ZBK29 (M), high-explosive fragmentation projectiles ZOF26 with a remote detonation system" Ainet ", with an electronic detonator providing 3VM undermining the OFS at a given point of the trajectory, this increases the efficiency of firing at hovering helicopters and manpower in trenches, guided missiles, which can be loaded into the ammunition load in any ratio. "
    The last thing I read about these developments was the upcoming equipment of the Pantsir-S1 air defense missile defense programmers.
    1. Victor-cort
      0
      26 July 2014 16: 28
      the difference in size ... as they already said here, it’s unrealistic to even release a cell phone .. in China it’s real and we don’t.
      As far as I know, even for 57mm shells it is not possible to develop such a system.
      1. 0
        26 July 2014 18: 32
        Well, don’t do that about us) We can release anything you like, but the components of the microcircuits (processors and other) will be Chinese at best) But the shell and appearance will be ours wink, and give an incomparable color to the product. Our collimator sights are an illustration of this.
        When for 20 years a bolt of 64 was hammered into the defense, do not expect another.
        1. Victor-cort
          -1
          26 July 2014 19: 01
          Quote: Pazifist87
          We can release anything you want, but the components of the microcircuits (processors and other) will be Chinese at best) But the shell and appearance will be ours, and will give an incomparable color to the product.

          you forgot the main thing that distinguishes our products, the sticker in large red letters "DOES NOT HAVE WORLD ANALOGUES" ... only this is not production, but assembly .... sort of different things ...
    2. padonok.71
      0
      26 July 2014 21: 24
      No, you don’t know that - the topic is about grenade launchers, and not about artillery weapons. On the borders we have nothing.
      PS: I will be very happy if this is not so.
  45. 0
    27 July 2014 20: 31
    Quote: Earnest
    "T-90 is capable of firing a wide range of ammunition of four types - armor-piercing sub-caliber 3BM42, 3BM46, 3BM42M (partially) cumulative ZBK29 (M), high-explosive fragmentation projectiles ZOF26 with a remote detonation system" Ainet ", with an electronic detonator 3VM

    Well, as it were, even taking into account the fact that shells with ZVM17 and 18 detonators have now been adopted, the design even admires the wide use of the elemental base that has been in stock since the Brezhnev stagnation — comrades are on the right track — the economy must be economical!

    Well, seriously, the principle used in the Internet for borders is not applicable because, despite the fact that the principle of operation of the Internet is the greatest military secret (probably so as not to disgrace) according to indirect data (supposedly with the installation of a new rangefinder the accuracy has increased), the principle is based on a temporary slowdown, that, in principle, for a tank gun with its serious SLM with a rich set of sensors and the powerful action of an OFS projectile, it’s quite applicable, but here the fragmentation-beam model is also basic for an Internet - i.e. the same shrapnel in a modern design for which the error at the trigger point of ten meters is not significant.
  46. 0
    27 July 2014 20: 48
    Quote: Earnest
    The electronic warfare complex "Mercury-BM" (production since 2011, http://kret.com/en/about/) is intended to suppress communication systems and radar

    Yeah, by setting active interference on which the electronics do not use radio communications deeply deep, the only thing that can affect the operation of the XM25 fuse is an electromagnetic weapon, but in a compact form factor it uses the principle of an explosive generator and is actually not a weapon but an ammunition with a short duration ( fractions of seconds) and with the same small radius (a few meters), and in the form of a full-fledged weapon, it requires such an amount of electricity that only a ship with a nuclear power plant can be used as its carrier.
  47. padonok.71
    0
    27 July 2014 22: 58
    To summarize, we have n.h.r.e.a. (and is not expected), at the Americans, some kind of h.r.e.v.iv.a.a. (but probably, after completion, will be wow so).
    1. anomalocaris
      0
      28 July 2014 07: 49
      Is not a fact. We can have anything. Even something that does not fit into any framework. I had the opportunity to see for myself. The only problem is that it is not "effective" to do it. Here it is necessary to move the horn, and look for people, and invest in equipment with materials ... In short, some expenses with minimal "effective" exhaust for "effective managers".
  48. 0
    28 July 2014 00: 07
    Quote: padonok.71
    some kind of h.r.e.v.o.iv.a. (but probably, after completion, there will be wow, so).

    Yeah, the key idea here is that they have it, or rather, a fully developed principle and well-developed electronics, and the disputes about the caliber are absolutely secondary because it doesn’t interfere with anything, by adjusting the program, doing something larger or even hanging it on the ancient M79 , the benefit of the lesser can always be shoved into the greater.
  49. 0
    28 July 2014 10: 25
    Quote: anomalocaris
    Here it is necessary to move the horn, and to search for people, and to invest in equipment with materials ...

    This has already been said, with only one correction - it’s good to invest in equipment, only it will not be sold either technology, as long as you have something to offer for an exchange, you need to agree with the Chinese, and for this you need the will of the leadership and a complete change in state policy regarding our development of modern technology and production, and all that is happening is more like a game of renaming and drank dough.
    1. anomalocaris
      0
      28 July 2014 15: 10
      That's it. Bulgarian Popil Otkatov rules the ball. As for equipment and technology, I do not agree. There are a lot of things we have, and what we don’t, you can buy.
  50. padonok.71
    0
    28 July 2014 15: 23
    Technologies, materiel, machine tool park - everything is secondary. Primarily - the will of the "top". Before the Second World War, there was a will and look, the Red Army arr. 37 and 40 years And only 3 years have passed. Now there is no will and the Russian army in 2005 and 2014, of course there are changes, but 9 years have passed. And there is no need to say GDP is that, GDP is, I have been in this system for 19 years. The initiative has been lost, it can still be returned, but you need desire, not effective management.
    Or follow the path of amerikashki. Give everything to private owners. And those for the sake of profit, for the sake of the state order, they will tear well ..pu and at the same time move science. Also in my opinion an option.
    1. 0
      28 July 2014 15: 53
      With watchmakers, too, it is not so simple, do you know a lot of our private high-tech industries?
      For 23 years of capitalism, in Russian, a certain type of "byznysmen" has developed, who in fact has changed a sheepskin coat and jeans for a haute couture suit but has remained a banal huckster shuttle.
      1. anomalocaris
        0
        28 July 2014 16: 59
        To be honest, not a single one. No private trader will invest their hard-earned money in dealing with huge risks and minimal returns in the medium term.
    2. anomalocaris
      0
      28 July 2014 16: 57
      Private traders will not succeed. Basically.
      The task of the private trader is to knock out profits, and the maximum with minimal costs. Many productions, especially complex and standard products (the same bolt-nuts or bearings) do not have that rate of return, which will suit the private trader. You should not nod to the west, everything is arranged completely differently there and has nothing to do with our realities (however, as well as with a market economy).
      1. Victor-cort
        0
        31 July 2014 09: 36
        Quote: anomalocaris
        The task of the private trader is to knock out profits, and the maximum with minimal costs.

        And the BASIC task of the state-owned enterprise is to master the money issued ... to master it and not give a result. Since if they don’t master it, they will receive less next time, and again, regardless of the result ...
  51. padonok.71
    +1
    28 July 2014 18: 35
    Under the existing order, I agree, give everything to private owners - ruin what little is left. But, again, if you want to pass laws and support it with benefits and loans, then I think things will work out. Our people are not at all, not drunkards and not lazy.
    Here's an example. We don’t have a normal pistol (don’t argue - no, neither military, nor police, nor, especially, civilian). Allow the short barrel. Allow private arms factories. Allow these factories to sell their weapons directly abroad and throughout Russia. I assure you, in 5-10 years, we will be inundated with normal, reliable, cutting-edge models.
    For the disputants - no, the people will not flood the streets with rivers of blood, and the authorities may even become more humane, this is my personal opinion.
    1. anomalocaris
      0
      29 July 2014 16: 15
      I won't even argue. The only problem on this path is our native state. It does not accept, and does not accept, armed citizens. For one, but glaring reason, a person who has been able to defend himself at least once will not bend. And, accordingly, it will become dangerous.
  52. 0
    29 July 2014 15: 58
    The main criterion should be the feedback from the soldiers. I think 35 bucks for destroying one or two targets behind cover is pennies. How many cartridges you will spend to destroy them also needs to be counted. But 25 is certainly no joke. A bit expensive though. We need a 000 mm grenade launcher and increase the range and accuracy for it. So that it would hit at least 40 km with a spread of max half a meter. I attached a grenade launcher and a special sight to any Kalash. And you scatter 2 mm grenades with high accuracy. In any case, it will be lighter in weight than carrying healthy automatic grenade launchers. You give one such device per company, and if you can’t smoke someone out of a pillbox with a machine gun, you throw 40 mm at him and move on. This is a crazy savings in ammunition. There is no need to waste thousands of cartridges that you also need to carry. Judging by the happy faces of the amers in the photos with this device, it was useful to them. Although the soldier is of little interest in its cost, the same cannot be said about the Moscow Region.
    1. anomalocaris
      0
      29 July 2014 16: 20
      35 bucks is the approximate cost of a 122 mm HE shell. Hence the difference - whether to fire five shots from a grenade launcher, with an unpredictable result, or to plow up a tennis court with 6-7 shells...
      1. Victor-cort
        0
        31 July 2014 09: 45
        Quote: anomalocaris
        35 bucks is the approximate cost of a 122 mm HE shell. Hence the difference - whether to fire five shots from a grenade launcher, with an unpredictable result, or to plow up a tennis court with 6-7 shells...

        In order to fire a 122mm shell to a sergeant (this is a squad, after all), you need to contact the artillerymen, prove/convince that it is you who need artillery support now, and not some other Vasya Pupkin (who at the same time proves that he needs artillery support), then give out the coordinates, and wait...and pray that the shell will fly to the enemy (which is 100 meters from you) and not to you, because from an automatic burst from brilliant green the chances of staying alive are much greater than from a 122mm shell falling nearby.
        In order to shoot at the enemy from the XM25, the sergeant just needs to point his finger....
        In general, at the same checkpoint you will think ten times whether to call for artillery support... because concrete blocks will protect you from rifle fire, but not even from a 120mm mortar shell.
        1. anomalocaris
          0
          31 July 2014 16: 39
          Ueli. Agree.
          But no one has canceled the criterion of efficiency-cost-versatility. The XM-25 grenade is effective only in the fragmentation version and ONLY in an air blast. It is impossible for them to pick apart any more or less serious cover. Sowing a trench like using an AGS is the same. So why do you need such an expensive weapon?
          1. Victor-cort
            0
            31 July 2014 20: 18
            Quote: anomalocaris
            So why do you need such an expensive weapon?

            Look at it as a sniper (because the probability of destruction is much higher than that of a regular rifle), but it does not require a shooter with special training (it’s no secret that you need to not only become a sniper, but also be born in the first place)
            And why is it expensive? You can count it differently, for example, it is officially believed that it takes about 10000 shots to hit one target (talking about a rifleman)
            1. anomalocaris
              0
              1 August 2014 16: 10
              Alas, it won't work out. A grenade launcher is not a sniper weapon. Especially the battlefield grenade launcher. The XM-25 does not satisfy the requirements of a battlefield grenade launcher at all. I repeat once again, its projectile is effective ONLY WITH AN AIR detonation.
              1. Victor-cort
                0
                3 August 2014 02: 17
                Quote: anomalocaris
                Alas, it won't work out. A grenade launcher is not a sniper weapon.

                If it allows you to perform the same tasks and even better, then it’s quite a sniper :)

                Quote: anomalocaris
                Especially the battlefield grenade launcher. The XM-25 does not satisfy the requirements of a battlefield grenade launcher less than nothing

                And the American soldiers who used it say that it is satisfactory....and by the way, what do you mean by “battlefield grenade launcher”?
                Quote: anomalocaris
                I repeat once again, its projectile is effective ONLY WITH AN AIR detonation.

                is this a drawback?
                1. anomalocaris
                  0
                  3 August 2014 10: 11
                  If it allows you to perform the same tasks and even better, then it’s quite a sniper :)

                  That's the point, it doesn't allow it. The grenade does not suffer from selectivity or penetration ability. A bullet, especially a large-caliber one, a cartridge like .338Lapua, .50Browning, 12,7X108 and the like, at a distance from 500 to 1200m, just like a sniper, will be preferable.
                  And the American soldiers who used it say that it is satisfactory....and by the way, what do you mean by “battlefield grenade launcher”?

                  Here I crawled around the grid a little and found a wonderful mention that this device was used as many as 200 times in a year...
                  is this a drawback?

                  Is this a dignity? With this toy, I repeat once again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to pick apart a shelter. It is impossible to defeat a more or less protected target. For example, I highly doubt that it will be effective even against a person in modern equipment. Moreover, the radiation from the laser rangefinder is detected at once and, accordingly, a blow will be delivered to this target. So the bottom line is that we have a rattle to disperse the Papuans.
                  1. Victor-cort
                    0
                    3 August 2014 23: 35
                    Quote: anomalocaris
                    That's the point, it doesn't allow it. The grenade does not suffer from selectivity or penetration ability. A bullet, especially a large-caliber one, a cartridge like .338Lapua, .50Browning, 12,7X108 and the like, at a distance from 500 to 1200m, just like a sniper, will be preferable.

                    If you shoot at targets at a shooting range that are beautifully set up vertically, then it is still unknown...after all, a bullet flying 1mm from the target passed by, and a grenade exploding half a meter away will hit the target...
                    And if you throw the target at the bottom of the hole at the same half a meter, then you can simply throw away the rifle... and the grenade will still hit the target :)
                    Quote: anomalocaris
                    Is this a dignity? With this toy, I repeat once again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to pick apart a shelter.

                    It is impossible to dig through a shelter even with a 60mm mortar...however, they have been successfully used since WWII and are not going to retire. I’m already silent about 40mm under-barrel grenade launchers... which are also excellently used.
                    Do not confuse small arms with artillery.
                    Quote: anomalocaris
                    Here I crawled around the grid a little and found a wonderful mention that this device was used as many as 200 times in a year...

                    quite enough to draw conclusions.
                  2. Victor-cort
                    0
                    3 August 2014 23: 49
                    Quote: Victor-Cort
                    It is impossible to defeat a more or less protected target. For example, I highly doubt that it will be effective even against a person in modern equipment.

                    Modern means do not protect very much from fragmentation (only the body) and believe me, with a dozen fragments in your hand, only in Indian films they continue to jump briskly... in real life, you will be lucky if your hand is not sawed off.
                    Quote: Victor-Cort
                    Moreover, the radiation from the laser rangefinder is detected at once and, accordingly, a blow will be delivered to this target.

                    Show me at least one Russian soldier who carries a laser radiation sensor... only vehicles have these, and they don’t shoot at vehicles with this device.
  53. 0
    5 August 2014 13: 33
    Quote: anomalocaris
    Moreover, the radiation from the laser rangefinder is detected at once and, accordingly, a blow will be delivered to this target.

    Well, laser irradiation sensors have been around for a long time, but there has not yet been a mass abandonment of laser rangefinders and laser-beam-controlled weapons; even tank countermeasure systems have many shortcomings. As far as I know, such systems only work with direct irradiation of the sensor; therefore, the protected area of ​​such a system is extremely small, plus the difficulty of creating sensors with a wide range of wavelengths. And finally, the world has long been using much more effective wearable systems that detect optics and, as necessary, disable electronics in optoelectronic devices or blind the shooter in conventional optical systems (for example, one of many, Nudelman’s portable laser optical device -electronic counteraction to PAPV), but despite this, they have not abandoned the use of optical sights on rifle rifles; on the contrary, an optical sight, even not on a sniper weapon, is already often considered as the main one and the mechanics as backup sighting devices.