View Full Version : Next Generation U.S. military weapons
if you watched discovery channel than you probaly seen this
http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/1998/9/army_wonder_weapon/images/tb_40076_2.jpg
http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/1998/9/army_wonder_weapon/images/tb_40076_1.jpg
this spiffy little toy is called the OICW (objective individual combat weapon)The OICW can be a dual- or single-barrel weapon. The removable top barrel hurls 20mm high-explosive air-bursting fragmentation rounds over the heads of hidden targets more than a half-mile away. The lower barrel shoots NATO-standard 5.56mm ammunition. These "kinetic" rounds provide accurate single-round or suppressive fire bursts at distances up to about 500 yards. A single trigger is linked to both barrels, by way of a laser-guided electronic fire-shot system as sophisticated as what you will find on a modern tank.
Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW)
"No Place to Hide"
The Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) is a next-generation infantry rifle system that will give American fighting troops an unprecedented capability on the 21st century battlefield.
In 1999, the program completed its Proof of Principles phase and in August, 2000, ATK was awarded a four-year Program Definition and Risk Reduction phase to incorporate lessons learned from the initial three advanced technology weapons built. After the end of PDRR, soldiers will conduct a mini-operation testing program to evaluate changes made and provide recommendations for the two-year engineering manufacture development phase (2005-07).
http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/oicw1b.jpg
http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/bullet1.jpg
http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/bullet2.jpg
http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/bullet3.jpg
http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/OICW-Airburst.jpg
http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/Shoulder-firedWeapons/images/oicw-labeled-1.jpg
http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/1998/9/army_wonder_weapon/images/tb_40076_1.jpg
Starship Troopers anyone?
heres a pic of the new crusaider looks like
http://www.global-defence.com/weapons/images/wep9_1.jpg
Arent they making thee next gen tanks out of high density plastics.
Thehamster
Feb 3 2002, 19:55
In case any of you lot are wetting your self’s to fire a digitised version of the OCIW I will recommend Ghost Recon for it shame it is a crap game.
there is also a new machine gun that will replace the M-60 its similar to OCIW capabilities such as the ability to fire "smart bullets" that denonate above a target thats taken cover behind a object. unlike other machine guns is very light weight and doesnt need the heavy sandbags sitting on the feet of the tripod. its a pretty cool weopon, it was on the same show that i saw the OCIW on discovery channel. is somebody could tell me what it is i'll find some nice pics.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Monkey Lib Front @ Feb. 03 2002,21:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arent they making thee next gen tanks out of high density plastics.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
plastic make things possible
i dont think so, sounds interesting though where did you hear that?
its a very nice gun, no doubt, looks very cool and would no doubt look cool and be really effective on the battlefield, but this is just a case of the Us spending way to much money for pointless stuff, i mean, it seems now rthe only way NATO will fight the enemy is to bomb the fuck out of them, gain air superiority, bomb them some more, send in some spec ops (who will no doubt use older guns for ages because they're tried and tested, just like always) and then use ground troops to take in refugees and captives.
It is a nice gun, but i doubt it'll have a major impact on any kind of ground warfare.
and watching ''Future Fighting Machines'' on bravo shows us already there are loads more cooler guns coming out that piss on it anyway (like that pistol that fires loads of heat seeking grenades and stuff)
Would it be pedantic to say that the "Ultimate Infantry Weapon" is a well trained soldier? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Rogue2020
Feb 3 2002, 22:38
Yeah the OICW is a hated weapon in swat 3......
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 03 2002,22:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arent they making thee next gen tanks out of high density plastics.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
plastic make things possible
i dont think so, sounds interesting though where did you hear that?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It was an article in the newspaper *stealth tanks*
This will be my last Post as i am about to be banned http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Mister Frag
Feb 4 2002, 00:42
The design feature I question the most about the OICW is the 10 inch barrel -- the 5.56 isn't very effective from such a short barrel.
The powder won't burn completely, it will have an enormous muzzle blast, and the bullet will loose a significant chunk of its power and velocity...
i dont care what the cons are of this gun, i just want one. maybe make target practice on some mice or rabbits, BTW its still in the prototype phase, so it will be subject to change.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Monkey Lib Front @ Feb. 04 2002,01:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arent they making thee next gen tanks out of high density plastics.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
plastic make things possible
i dont think so, sounds interesting though where did you hear that?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It was an article in the newspaper *stealth tanks*
*** This will be my last Post as i am about to be banned ***http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
stealth tanks eh? like in Comand & Conquer?
Albert Schweitzer
Feb 4 2002, 01:30
I agree, for for do you need more guns for? Which other superpower you need to compete with. What is all that "defense" about that Bush announced. The US profed that they can quickly react in even the most remote areas of the world (Afghanistan). Or do you prepare for the war with Aliens?
brgnorway
Feb 4 2002, 01:36
It certainly looks impressive, but I do have second thoughts about the design. The height of the weapon from the top of the scope/video/whatever to the bottom of the magazine is too much. Imagine how it is to lie down to the ground when you have to raise your head that much in order to get a line of sight. Your head would be too exposed. It also looks a bit bulky and there is too much that could go wrong.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Feb. 04 2002,03:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It certainly looks impressive, but I do have second thoughts about the design. The height of the weapon from the top of the scope/video/whatever to the bottom of the magazine is too much. Imagine how it is to lie down to the ground when you have to raise your head that much in order to get a line of sight. Your head would be too exposed. It also looks a bit bulky and there is too much that could go wrong.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
if you look at my first pic, you will see that if bulk is a problem, the gun will seperate into a smaller sub machine gun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, for for do you need more guns for? Which other superpower you need to compete with. What is all that "defense" about that Bush announced. The US profed that they can quickly react in even the most remote areas of the world (Afghanistan). Or do you prepare for the war with Aliens?
you never know, there is always competition between countries, and the U.S.A and China are infact at odds with each other. and North Koriea is another that is worring everybody. why do we want to upgrade to new effective hardware? why not? its not like they are built to make messy deaths like in "DOOM" like games. its not like where goin to be the only nation that will be upgrading its weapons. man kind has been upgrading weapons since the stone age. from a simple sharpened stick to the firearm. almost all of the weapons in between the two times have been far more gruesome than the weapons of today. and i do beleive that there is other life out there in the galaxy and when we start exploring the endless void, some of the other worlds may not be too friendly.
brgnorway
Feb 4 2002, 02:18
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 04 2002,04:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It certainly looks impressive, but I do have second thoughts about the design. The height of the weapon from the top of the scope/video/whatever to the bottom of the magazine is too much. Imagine how it is to lie down to the ground when you have to raise your head that much in order to get a line of sight. Your head would be too exposed. It also looks a bit bulky and there is too much that could go wrong.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
if you look at my first pic, you will see that if bulk is a problem, the gun will seperate into a smaller sub machine gun.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, but still, think about all the fiddling when you seperate the two parts/guns. And do you in the heat of the moment know which weapon is most apropriate. Besides, I believe the optics/video scope is easy to damage if you wear it on the body when you are crawling around on the ground.
if you ever seen the show on discovery channel on this weapon, you will see that there is no fiddling at all to remove it, it snaps on and off. as for the part of choosing which weapon is apropriate, i dont see what would be the problem there is only two types of firing modes, both of them with one purpose each. on the bottom, fires standard bullets. the top fires "smart bullets" the purpose of the smart bullets is to take out targets behind cover, when fired the bullet is detonated above the target. the shrapnel from the explosion will then destroy the target(s) i know what you mean by what your saying about having your head exposed. but as far as i am concered it doesnt matter how much or how little you have your head exposed. if its exposed its exposed requardless of the weapon. and when or if it goes on the assembly line im sure that more than just the U.S. is gona be buying it.
brgnorway
Feb 4 2002, 02:58
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 04 2002,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you ever seen the show on discovery channel on this weapon, you will see that there is no fiddling at all to remove it, it snaps on and off. as for the part of choosing which weapon is apropriate, i dont see what would be the problem there is only two types of firing modes, both of them with one purpose each. on the bottom, fires standard bullets. the top fires "smart bullets" the purpose of the smart bullets is to take out targets behind cover, when fired the bullet is detonated above the target. the shrapnel from the explosion will then destroy the target(s) i know what you mean by what your saying about having your head exposed. but as far as i am concered it doesnt matter how much or how little you have your head exposed. if its exposed its exposed requardless of the weapon. and when or if it goes on the assembly line im sure that more than just the U.S. is gona be buying it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, you are free to do whatever you wish, but I can assure you I would not stick my head up more than nessecary when the going gets tough.
http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
well anyway heres what i've been looking for. this will be replacing the M-60 heavy machine gun. i cant remember the name of the weapon, all i could find out was that it was a 25mm http://www.snipersparadise.com/images/25mm_rifle.jpg
despite its size its a very light weigth weapon, has little recoil, and unlike most heavy machine guns, doesnt require the use weights on the feet of the tripod.
Heres (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/ocsw_atd.jpg) a better look at the machine gun. go here (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/) if you want to browse the entire site
Hasharajima
Feb 4 2002, 03:25
Cool guns, I think OSAMa is going to have a hard time hiding behind rocks and caves.
Our poor hind needs upgrade again or these new bullets will bring it down! Probably Diamond or FULL 2 CM TITANIUM armour??
Mister Frag
Feb 4 2002, 03:27
Osama hasn't had any trouble keeping out of view, so I doubt that he is worried about new infantry weapons. He'll likely be dead (if he isn't already) before the OICW is ever deployed.
Assault (CAN)
Feb 4 2002, 03:28
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this (OCSW) will be replacing the M-60 heavy machine gun[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No it won't. The M-240 is already doing that.
BTW, the M-60 is not a "heavy machine gun" as you say. It is a GPMG General Purpose Machine Gun, or Medium Machine Gun.
Here is a quote from the FAS site on the OCSW
The OCSW is the potential replacement weapon for the 40mm MK19 Grenade Machine Gun and the caliber .50 M2 Machine Gun.
Note the word POTENTIAL http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Tyler
your right about that, btw if anybody is interested in know more about the Crusaider or other spiffy armor, theres some nice info of it in the url i posted.
christophercles
Feb 4 2002, 10:23
Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW)
The Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW) is an integrated machine gun system which couples the firepower of air bursting munitions with optoelectronic fire control to provide all-environment operation and enhanced lethality. The OCSW is an ultra-light, two-man portable, crew-served weapon system incorporating state-of-the-art electronics, advanced materials, and small arms technologies. This unique weapon permits a high probability of incapacitation and suppression of enemy soldiers up to 2000 meters away and has a high potential to damage lightly armored vehicles, water craft, and slow-moving aircraft beyond 1000 meters. The OCSW is the potential replacement weapon for the 40mm MK19 Grenade Machine Gun and the caliber .50 M2 Machine Gun.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/ocsw_atd.jpg
The crusader isnt a tank, its an artillary platform, and the new generation of tanks will be (codenamed) XM8 "light tanks" that can be parachuted, they have the same (but much smaller and auto-loaded) 105mm guns from the early m1's and they can fit 5 into a C5. They were supposed tom come online in 1997, but the commanche was also supposed to come online next year, but they anly have 2 prototypes of that.
christophercles
Feb 4 2002, 10:45
ok, actually that project was scraped, but it looks like exactly what they need, instead of developing new ifv's, that will be hardly any backup to the m1's at all, they could have droped those babies in instead. They spent 1.3 billion on it, youd think they try and get SOMETHING from it.
The OCIW or what ever sure looks nice but i have my doubts about it. What if it breaks down? Im more knowledgable about aviation then rifles and alike but bear with me. When the Dutch Airforce had F-104's the spend lets say 5 hours in maintenance for every hour of flight time.... the advent of the F-16 double this because of it (quite usefull) electronics. What u dont put in it wont break and knowing the slightly less then gentle way this weapon will be handled in combat its prone to be more likely to breakdowns. Electronics have never handled rough treatment as well as mechanics do and i see this thing likely becoming a real "Hangar Queen" to use a aviation term. I.e. operators will be spending allot of time fixing it ..... more so then using it.
Nice weapons for such places as afganistan and Iraq where you are fighting against alot inferior opponent who cant put up against fight but in such scenario as WW2 I am somewhat sure that OICW would be too complicated weapons system.
Nice weapons for such places as afganistan and Iraq where you are fighting against alot inferior opponent who cant put up against fight but in such scenario as WW2 I am somewhat sure that OICW would be too complicated weapons system.
well for being "inferior" they sure kicked the shot put of the soviets...
as for the weapons reliability.. who knows.. i pity the idiot who would try to say its crap.. seeing as how its prototype.. nobody knows about it.. I think if it malfunctioned it would be easy to fix.. its modular.. if teh 20mm part breaks.. pop in another.. if the top part breaks.. pop on another..
as for that machine gun *THING*.. man thats an ugly looking thing!
Mister Frag
Feb 5 2002, 04:54
The OCSW would look right at home in the movie "Starship Troopers" http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Thats because US bombed them first for long time before sending own men in. Taleban was also mostly fighting against their "own (being opposition)" which resulted into alot of taleban fighters changing their side to opposition side.
You cant always get new part and just "pop on another" when it comes to WW2 like war where suply works how it works and when it works. Not like in some pitfull conflict such as Iraq or Afganistan where own troops can operate almost however they want.
I wasnt saying it was a bad weapon, how could I know. It just seems to be far too complicated to work for longer period of time at harsh conditions. More suitable for such operations as Iraq or Afganistan.
It just seems to be far too complicated to work for longer period of time at harsh conditions
some time ago the same was said when some cook suggested the idea of replacing pack mules with a motorized vehicle to help an army move better http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard3/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.