In concept, the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) is a small grenade launcher with a laser range-finder. The range-finder lases the target and sets the round to explode at that range. The grenades are 20mm caliber so that they fly flatter, faster and farther than the standard 40mm. The original idea was such weapons would replace rifles; more likely they will serve as fire-team support weapons.
Quite a simple idea if you can get the programmable fuse to work. Since the idea of the OICW was made public, Saco has adapted a 40mm grenade machine gun with programmable priming and experimental rounds. So why is the OICW taking so long? The reason is that things have be allowed to get complicated:
1) It is assumed that firing weapon has to be semi-automatic or selective
fire.
2) It's been decided that the sighting system should contain motion trackers, video cameras, radar and lots of other high tech gear.
3) Since Grenades have a minimum range, an under-barrel assault rifle has been included in the design.
The OICW could be ready for
issue in a year if an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach was taken.
Create an interim OICW based on
a 20mm version of a revolver grenade launcher. Many countries already use six
shot 40mm grenade launchers based on revolver mechanisms.
Russian RG-6 six-barrel 40mm grenade launcher fielded in 1993
There are also shotguns based on
the same mechanism since a 12 gauge shotgun is nearly 20mm caliber. It should be possible to build
such a weapon that fires the 20mm OICW round, and it may be possible to
interchange components so the weapon can fire 40mm grenades or 37mm riot
munitions too. Like the Striker shotgun, this weapon should be capable of
ejecting fired cases, and the port used for this could be used to load empty
chambers. Such a launcher would be easier
to manufacture than a semi-automatic weapon, and more compact.
I'll term my variation of the
OICW the Ph1-OICW to distinguish it from the official model which I'll term the
US_OICW. With a laser range-finder to
eliminate the guesswork, such a weapon would be pretty accurate with just a
simple optic scope or iron sights. Fancy scopes and vision devices can be added
on later when they are perfected. The weapon would have a dial on
the side of the Fuse Setter Interface to select different fusing modes. There
would also be a two stage trigger, the first pressure activating the ranging
laser, the second firing the round.
The OICW may need to make curved trajectory shots, and should therefore be
provided with a gas port to bleed some of the propellant out from behind the
projectile. For this mode of fire the computer in the sighting system should
display the correct angle of elevation for high trajectory fire for the range
lased.
An Alternate Solution to the Problem of Close Range Firing.
Information about the
official 20mm OICW ammo has not been publicize; an educated guess would be that a
HEDP round is the likely choice. The official OICW prototype has
a 10" underbarrel rifle for close range defense. This adds about
3.5lb to the weapon's weight and probably doesn't do much to improve the balance
either. Another thing that seems to be overlooked is the an M855 round fired
from a ten inch barrel doesn't reach enough velocity for the bullet to fragment,
so stopping power will be considerably less than that of either an M16 or M4.
The need for a co-axial weapon
can be eliminated if the 20mm round used is based on the Krupp Universal
shell. This resembles a shrapnel shell with the charge at the bottom, and
with the shot also held in a matrix of explosive, we'll call the latter charge
"A" and the base charge "B".
-For troops in the open the B charge is used to produce a conical
pattern of fragments.
-If the troops are behind cover then the shell is exploded overhead using
the A charge, producing a spherical pattern. This setting is also
used for firing into a window during street fighting.
-Against soft skin or light armored vehicles there are several
options:-firing a conical pattern just before impact, or firing both charges
on impact.
-For close range fighting the weapon may be able to project a conical
pattern like a large shotgun, or fire the B charge on impact with the
target. If the target is very close then the weapon may fire a round with
the fuse unarmed. Given the size of the projectile this should still have
considerable effect.
-alternate solution to close range firing is to issue canister rounds as
was done with single shot grenade launchers in Vietnam.
One thing that also must be
addressed is the default setting of the round.:- i.e. how it should still
work if the electronics malfunction or are fried by an EMP. This will probably be impact
detonation, so the weapon can function like an old grenade launcher, and
should work purely mechanically. The default setting for the Universal shell
would be impact detonation in a spherical pattern.
Ph2-OICW.
If you must have a
5.56mm co-axial gun, make it an integral part of the weapon rather than an
add on so that it can be part of a full offensive system rather than just a
close range defense. This will make 5.56 barrel
is long enough for the round to reach a decent velocity. Linking it to the
20mm barrel will stiffen it and allow it use its bulk as a heat sink during
sustained fire. This weapon could be based on a configuration like the Crossfire
shotgun/rifle. The resulting weapon would
therefore be a combination of both grenade launcher and light machine gun.
Phil West phil.west@angelfire.com
Letters
The OICW vs Body Armor
The OICW article is interesting. The 10 year development of this gadget has a hit a dead-end. The only thing to do with OICW at this time is send it to the ordnance museum at Aberdeen. It suffers from a terminal lack of lethality in both directions.
The US Army is already buying 7.62mm proof body armor in the Interceptor program. What they need to do is first define where infantry protection will be 10 years from now, or technologically could be if an adversary chooses to develop this technology. Then they need to specify the projectile performance to punch through that. Twenty years too late the US Army is buying 7.62mm chest/back bullet proof vests which are frag proof all over the torso. Now sense set in and they're buying 9mm proof helmets for everyone and not just SOCOM. But all the body armor available now was developed in response to Department of Justice specs for police armor. The fragmented and small scale market led to undercapitalized R&D efforts, which still produced effective armor.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A GOVERNMENT SOMEPLACE PUTS $1 BILLION BEHIND INFANTRY PROTECTION R&D? Imagine a squad of 80% 7.62mm proof soldiers (and 95% frag proof) charging our current infantry platoon. The rudderless course we're following has put us on a collision course with technological surprise.
You see where this is leading. It doesn't start or end with the OICW. Most of our current anti-personnel weapons inventory is in very serious technological trouble. HE propelled fragments will not go where 7.62mm NATO ball (or even 5.56mm ball) failed to penetrate. Short of 12.7mm we really don't have anything that is a dependable personnel killer in this emerging battlefield. And 12.7mm weapons are few enough to justify an enemy PGM.
This kind of defense/offense technological race is not new. In the first half of the 20th Century it was battleships and armor vs gunpowder. In the second half it was tanks in that same armor/gunpowder race. Now infantry is in this derby but general recognition has not yet set in. It hasn't set in the USA and I pray it hasn't set in China. In my own opinion the 'Dreadnought' race of the early 21st Century will be in the infantry.
Mark Gallmeier enigma@gate.net