Would it be more useful to have grenade launching platforms (say an AGL or a 60mm mortar) loaded onto some sort of unmanned ground and/or aerial vehicle?   Man portable heavy weapons -  even grenade launchers - always face compromises because of weight (limiting how much ammo can be carried compared to rifles)  GL also tend to be heavy (Especially multi-shot) and you need that because the recoil can also be high (especially if you want a high velocity to get more range)  and that forces more trade-offs between projectile weight and velocity and the recoil for a man portable weapon.  recoilless weapons don't have the recoil issue but still face tradeoffs in weight vs performance AND the need for countermass imposes its own constraints.   Thus, providing that capability in a separate supporting platform seems more worthwhile, and unmanned vehicles can come in a wide variety of forms. 

I'd expect the need for suppressive fire also remain so having at least some troops equipped with rifles that can be effective at longer and shorter ranges (including Designated Marksmen) would be desirable.    In that context I could see giving troops some kind of rifle grenade in small numbers to supplement a unmanned support weapons platform.

Failing that, something like Big Dog or some other robot to serve as ammo carrier might alleviate the weight requirements and work equally well for tube launched grenades, rifle grenades and small mortars and recoilless weapons.   At most the soldier has to carry the weapon and a smaller quantity of ammo.   I imagine the robot could also carry heavier support weapons like a Gustaf. 

PRM2 said:

1. During World War 1 the British Army ended up using old SMLEs as dedicated grenade launchers, with their stocks reinforced by wire wrapping, due to the hammering that the rifle got when used as a grenade launcher. Do you have to monitor and possibly limit the number of rifle grenades fired from individual rifles?

The first dedicated rifle grenades were heavy, for example the n°68 AT grenade weight was nearly 900 g, the Energa / super Energa / M31 were between ~650 and ~750 g, the recoil was significant and most of the time the rifle was fired with the stock on the ground, like a mortar.

The AP/AV 40 grenade we are using with the HK416 F weight around 435 g, and is designed to be shot from the shoulder, not with the rifle stock against the ground, or a wall, or a tree...

The force acting against the stock is less important when the rifle is fired from the shoulder, and we checked that the 416 could fire a minimum of 200 rifle grenades without damage.

PRM2 said:

2. You discussed the time to achieve a firing solution for OICW earlier. However, is it recommended that rifle grenades are used in conjunction with some sort of rangefinder/known range where possible, to improve accuracy especially at longer ranges?

This problem is driven by the effective range you want for your HE round.

There is a maximum amount of tolerable impulse, so if you want to increase the effective range, you need to increase the muzzle velocity and reduce the warhead weight accordingly. A smaller warhead will have a smaller effect, so you will need more accuracy, and ultimately a FCS of some sort.

AFAIK, I think that the ranging part of the shot should be devoted to the guy who is giving the orders and is maintaining the fire discipline, not to the shooter, and a ~400 g grenade with a range of ~350 m is still effective with even a rough aiming system.

Trying to shoot HE at a longer range than 400 m needs a significant increase of the launcher weight / sighting system / or a significant reduction of the grenade payload.

EmericD said:

Trying to shoot HE at a longer range than 400 m needs a significant increase of the launcher weight / sighting system / or a significant reduction of the grenade payload.

hm... there are methods to achieve the desired range increase without a significantly heavier grenade or more recoil impulse.

RAP! A rocket booster that fires after the grenade has been launched. It wouldn't have to be huge if the desired range increase is moderate. Like +150 m for 500 m range. Back in the day I read about projects for RAP rifle grenades but these have been about increasing the range for AT use of HEAT grenades. It should work for HE lobbing as well.

schnuersi said:

RAP! A rocket booster that fires after the grenade has been launched. It wouldn't have to be huge if the desired range increase is moderate. Like +150 m for 500 m range. Back in the day I read about projects for RAP rifle grenades but these have been about increasing the range for AT use of HEAT grenades. It should work for HE lobbing as well.

The 140 mm RAW was exactly that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman%27s_Assault_Weapon

Gduggins213 said:

Failing that, something like Big Dog or some other robot to serve as ammo carrier might alleviate the weight requirements and work equally well for tube launched grenades, rifle grenades and small mortars and recoilless weapons.   At most the soldier has to carry the weapon and a smaller quantity of ammo.   I imagine the robot could also carry heavier support weapons like a Gustaf.

Right.

People generally see 2 different kind of robotic vehicle, the "mule" on one side, developped to transport bags and the general furniture that soldiers need to transport, and the "terminator" on the other side, i.e. an armed robot, generally with a RWS.

But you could absolutely use a "mule" to carry a M2HB on a tripod, with ammo, and just have a soldier to fire the gun if needed.

Thank you, I hadn't realised how the French rifle grenade had been developed and optimised compared to the earlier designs.

PRM2 said:

Thank you, I hadn't realised how the French rifle grenade had been developed and optimised compared to the earlier designs.

Unfortunately, it seems that most rifle grenades manufacturers made large improvement of their products at a time when most Western armies stopped using this kind of device.

For example, FN Herstal "Bullet Thru" was an interesting product with a weight around 320 g, but did not meet a large commercial success.

Gduggins213 said:

I'd expect the need for suppressive fire also remain so having at least some troops equipped with rifles...

Rifles?  Why would you want to use rifles to meet the need for suppressive fire?  https://youtu.be/0V6l-kVX6u4?t=1

Emeric,

The sequence doesn't have to take a whole bunch longer and from what I'm seeing a lot of that functionality necessary to do so is already onboard the current ngsw FC.

Technically speaking with the existing ngsw FC so long as a set of sensors tied into your squad's data network has "eyes on" your target it can be designated by someone whose not you, show up as a discrete target option in your ui, and take offboard cuing which your sights ballistic computer will crunch and adjust the reticle for.

There's an awful lot of what will make or break these systems that's in the UI, networking specifics, and other things we don't normally think of with reference to small arms or small unit tactics.

We're on the cusp of having what are essentially aegis infantry formations where the shooter doesn't necessarily have to get HIS DESIGNATOR to laze before he can engage. Instead he just needs A DESIGNATOR to do so and for his systems to know where he is in relation to both the target and the offboard designator.

roguetechie said:

We're on the cusp of having what are essentially aegis infantry formations where the shooter doesn't necessarily have to get HIS DESIGNATOR to laze before he can engage. Instead he just needs A DESIGNATOR to do so and for his systems to know where he is in relation to both the target and the offboard designator.

I totally understand the possibilities and interest of collaborative combat, because that's exactly the core of the SCORPION program. All those new vehicles (Griffon, Jaguar, Serval, Leclerc XLR...) are designed around this concept (sensor fusion and sharing the data around all the vehicles).

Collaborative combat was also the basis of the FELIN program, soldiers being able to share the video flux from their sight in real time.

Be assured that there are some drawbacks and limitations to this concept.