I think at 6k it would be a steal ,but its likely not even close 

If you look at the orders and costs it seems to be a 70k weapon that kills a single person or wounds a group , Product of GWOT targeted killing campain , that ultimately turned out sub 5% success rates

While the number might include 300 and 600 models, its clear it's not even close to 6k a pop.

''Add up all the of contracts we know about, and AeroVironment has received at least $105.4 million worth of orders for 1,500 Switchblades produced -- which works out to a unit cost of more than $70,200 per Switchblade. Minimum.''

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: Like the OICW concept. No more riflemen in the squad. Riflemen become grenadiers.

The OICW concept was to provide a KE weapon to fight from 0 to 300 m, and a semi-auto grenade launcher for the longer range (300 m to 600 m), where the rifle is supposed to be ineffective.

That is incorrect.  The grenade launcher was meant to also be used at <300 meters.  For example, against targets in defilade, or in buildings, where the KE weapon would be ineffective.

And I did not say like the OICW concept in every way.  I said like the OICW concept in that the squad's riflemen become grenadiers.

EmericD said:

One conceptual problem (there were others) was that a semi-auto grenade launcher, light enough to be carried all day long, and with a recoil light enough to be fired from the shoulder, is also ineffective at those longer range.

The warhead is simply not large enough to compensate for the dispersion and the large ToF.

Yes.  As I said, the OICW tried to do too much with too little.  I think a bigger warhead is needed, and the range shortened (to keep recoil tolerable).

EmericD said:

We already know how to "make every rifleman a grenadier", simply issue rifle grenades to every rifleman.

Since their primary weapon would still be a rifle, they would not be grenadiers.  They would be riflemen who have a few grenades.

----------

ETA:

Remember what you said in Msg 16?

EmericD said:

That's the failure point of the OICW (and other similar programs).

You can't aim, lase, check the relevance of the firing solution, aim again, and launch a grenade at medium range, in just 2 seconds.

You need to expose yourself and stay perfectly motionless for much more than that.

You have a very similar "failure point" with rifle grenades.

You can't load the grenade onto the rifle, take precise aim, and launch the grenade, in just 2 seconds.

You need to expose yourself and stay perfectly motionless for much more than that.

Tir FLG Famas ! - YouTube

https://youtu.be/0WTq5wSCPAw?t=4

Ah yeah I'm definitely not opposed to this, especially with pgk now having a mortar version which allows you to carry fewer rounds and takes some of the pressure off having your mortar tube perfectly aimed to get effective fire.

The Chinese do indeed have drone hand grenades that can also be hard launched from 60mm countermeasures tubes and mortars giving it a range boost.

Also MIT Lincoln labs has just made a very relevant advance to this sort of thing which will very quickly bring the cost down on some things like this...

Anyone who wants more information can PM me, I don't necessarily want to attach this advance to this topic in the minds of anyone who can read this thread though. 

Oh and here's a way better picture of SSW I pulled from a Russian site.

roguetechie said:

Oh and here's a way better picture of SSW I pulled from a Russian site.

As Crocodile Dundee might say, that's not a way better picture of SSW.

Now this is a way better picture of SSW.  

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: OICW sought to improve his effectiveness.

Yes and that was dumb.

???  Since when is it "dumb" to seek to improve combat effectiveness? 

schnuersi said:

If the effectiveness is 0,01 and I double it it becomes 0,02. Which is such a marginal improvement it is hardly worth any resource invenstment.

Now you are just making up numbers.  The actual improvement would have varied with target distance.  

schnuersi said:

The effectiveness of a rifleman or better infantry man goes up significantly from 100 m and closer. So doubling a significantly larger number would have yielded significant results... most likely for less resource investment.

Yes.  IMO, they made a mistake in trying for such long-range capability.  They should have gone with a much bigger caliber, and much shorter range.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: I see no need for an arcing trajectory with airburst rounds. Indeed, I think that in most infantry vs infantry combat scenarios, a flat trajectory would be preferable with airburst munitions.

Why? The rifle/small arm has a flat trajectory. Why have two weapons with the same profile?

There would not be.  As I said, replace the rifle.  Every rifleman a grenadier.  

stancrist said:

Since when is it "dumb" to seek to improve combat effectiveness?

Its not dumb to seek to improve something. But its dumb to start with a weak characteristic. Its far more sensbible to try and improve strong characteristics first.

stancrist said:

Now you are just making up numbers. The actual improvement would have varied with target distance.

Yes the numbers are made up. Its just an example. Never the less the variation with range is actually rather low above 100 m and 0,01 is way to high. Its orders of magnitude lower.

stancrist said:

Every rifleman a grenadier.

I am not convinced that this works. Who does the main job of the rifleman then? Carrying ammo, providing additional eyes and ears, replacement personell and short range fighting?

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Every rifleman a grenadier.

I am not convinced that this works.

That's understandable.  I am not certain that it would work.  It would depend upon whether or not a viable weapon system can be developed.

At this point it's only a theory, a concept, based in large part on video evidence.  Like this, for example:  https://youtu.be/4UolMYY7QaA?t=174

schnuersi said:

Who does the main job of the rifleman then? Carrying ammo, providing additional eyes and ears, replacement personell and short range fighting?

Ammo bearer may be the main job of the German rifleman, but employing his assigned weapon in infantry combat is the main job of the American rifleman.

stancrist said:

That's understandable.  I am not certain that it would work.  It would depend upon whether or not a viable weapon system can be developed. At this point it's only a theory, a concept, based in large part on video evidence.  Like this, for example:  https://youtu.be/4UolMYY7QaA?t=174

Hum...

First, let's have a look of a 120 mm canister shot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riy4EaoR76U

• "Whoa, that's impressive, no-one could survive a single shot, so let's replace rifles with shotguns!"
• "But, Sir, a 12 gauge shotgun will never be able to deliver this kind of results."
• "I know, but that's simply because 12 ga. not big enough. The concept is solid, we just need a bigger gun!"

???  I don't get the connection.  Are you saying it's impossible to make a 30mm (or larger caliber) grenade launcher?