Small Wars Journal

The XM-25 is now in country...

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 2:44pm

It's being hailed as "revolutionary" and a "game changer". It's the XM-25 Individual Airburst Weapon System. It's now deployed in Afghanistan (AFP, FOX) What say you?

Comments

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:18am

correction - that first line was meant to address that as a DF system the weapon provides the means to engage observed targets employing cover

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:03am

I suppose its all in the judgement of the user (or his fire team or squad leader)- I think it also allows for visibility of the target, just inability to engage it behind cover.

"Large and heavy" are relative terms - if the system is as eefective as it reads, then it could cut down the loads of other crew served as it may fulfill some of the purposes assigned to the 249 and 240 - after all the best way to supress something is to kill it.

As for self defense, if operating with other members of a squad or team, this issue can be addressed as well - an improvement over the M9 might be a start.

As for the COIN environment - I think there are advantages there as well - this is still a direct fire weapon - meaning there is less chance of error than employment of even small caliber mortars - even 60s in direct lay don't employ a sophisticated LRF that feeds the targeting and munition system. Its bursting radius is also probably significantly more efficient since its tied to the target. Also worth considering that the quicker the fight is over, the less chance of unintended casualties and the sooner the locals can get back to business.

Sounds like $$$ well spent to support the folks who do the hardest work in this enviornment

Drew (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:13am

OK, so when did it become a good idea to shoot itty bitty grenades at targets you cannot see in a COIN environment? Using a large and heavy weapon, which becomes an albatross around the neck of the poor bastard that has to carry it. With limited self-defense potential.

This is a fine example of fielding a weapon only because we sunk an outlandish amount of money into a bad idea.

Ken L (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:34am

Innovation and technological advancement are always good even if in the end specific elements prove less than practical - within reason of course - no one wants to see scarce resources gobbled up by harebrained 'pet projects' - but in a world where America will increasingly be on its own in defense of Western ideals the only thing that's gonna save us is superior training and cutting edge technology.

Tukhachevskii (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 3:53am

I don't know if it was/is worth the expense. Reminds me of the old joke about astronauts needing to write upside down in space...the US develops a $25 million pen, meanwhile the Soviets just use pencils! IIRC both ATK of Singapore and Israel's IMI both offer airburst modifications that allow existing 40mm UGL to launch 40mm airburst munitions (with the advantgae of greater payload and no new weapon). Personally, I think that would have been a better and more economical route (not to mention logistically) to go down. How many different types/calibres of rounds will now be needed at Plt/Coy level? But then again them industrial types need their bailouts too in these hard times!

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 12/03/2010 - 2:08am

After carefully going through the specs, I'm thoroughly convinced we have a winner here. Then again, the specs don't always account for certain random variables in the field, but I have confidence in the XM-25. It'll be some time before we get a consensus from the troops on its effectiveness, but I look forward to seeing their reviews.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 12/02/2010 - 4:00pm

Keepng it in perspective, if it works as advertised it probably both enhances fire and manuever at the squad and platoon level and with a 700 meeter reach it would may (over time)have an effect on the enemy's ambush planning - allowing friendly forces more time to bring other combined arms into play. From a defensive perspective, it will make the enemy's effort to sustain a suppressive base of fire and maneuver through dead space for its own assualts more difficult as the XM 25 is able to cover dead space in a way the 203 was not.

35K is not too much to spend if it delivers the type of results it advertises. Since the tech makes it easy to use, the training associated training costs should go down while the life cycle of the weapon should improve.

Mark (not verified)

Thu, 12/16/2010 - 8:41pm

I don't care about anybody's opinion about the weapon, any reports yet on how it is actually working in the field? If the squads assigned them refuse to go into the field without it, that is one answer. If they refuse to go into the field with it, that is another answer. Anybody know?

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 12/16/2010 - 9:41pm

The Germans in WWII carried the Panzerfaust despite the fact that it was heavy and had a limited range. Why? Because it was a very effective and deadly weapon. If the XM25 meets a desperate need, then its weight won't matter as it would if it were only occasionally useful or needed. As someone has already said, seeing how the troops rate it is the key.

carl (not verified)

Thu, 12/16/2010 - 11:42pm

Just a question from an interested civilian: as far as individual self-defence goes, could the XM-25 be viewed as sort of a shotgun loaded with slugs?