This is all very exciting. Obviously I'm super stoked off the airbursting grenade launcher. Hopefully they decide to pursue something with more emphasis on lethality/bang vs flat trajectory, as the newest gens of smart optics can counter pretty steep trajectories.

But the Individual Assault Munition is also very interesting. I'm curious whether this will be LAW M72 size, or AT4 sized, and whether it will be optically equipped or just those flip up irons. 

Overall I think Ukraine has shown the general utility of having as much man portable HE capability as possible, both for anti vehicle and anti perssonel / fortification. 

...

The 120mm seems like the most lethal but hardest to develop. 120mm power, 69 round loadout, with a accurate man portable launcher that can be gone in 3 minutes. 

What comes most to mind is perhaps a 81mm using the Saab MAPAM munition, which gives 120mm level fragmentation but in a smaller shell?

If a new, larger and heavier semi-auto [grenade launcher] should be developed and fielded, a grenadier so equipped probably would carry no secondary weapon, as is typical of XM25 users seen in Afghanistan photos and video."

An interesting chicken egg question is whether this was due to the lack of a PDW for them to carry. 

Couldn't / didnt want to also carry a M4, and they either lacked a pistol or figured it was effectively useless at afghan ranges and didnt bother carrying one. 

Had an actual MP9/MP7 type PDW been available, I wonder if they would have chosen to carry it? 

If it's going to be vehicle mounted I would like to have seen 120mm, while you can carry fewer rounds for the same weight (I think the USMC setup included a trailer with something like 32 rounds) there's more potential when it comes to effects on target, range, and future guided / cargo rounds which is what I would very much like to see at battalion level.  The main argument I see with 81mm would be ability to manpack the piece should the vehicle be inappropriate or disabled which is valid but I also think in practice it's much less practical than it is in theory and a vehicle would be used more often then not in the vast majority of cases, and I think guided 120mm at battalion would be an excellent compliment to long range 60mm with MAPAM at company, itself complimented by 60mm commando mortars at platoon.

Taking from the Chinese then, on the precision grenade launchers?

Or is this going to be closer to a XM25 throwback?

It would be nice if they were M72 sized, that way a squad could carry more, more easily. 

Probably AT-4 size, with ability to mount an electronic sight. Try to get an NLAW lite.

Apsyda said:

Taking from the Chinese then, on the precision grenade launchers? Or is this going to be closer to a XM25 throwback?

Perhaps a bit of both?  The drawing of the PGS is similar to the Chinese weapon, except with box mag and no muzzle brake.

IMO a HVGL would be quite useful but belongs at platoon level, by virtue of its size, weight and effective range. During more conventional style combat it would be better able to support the maneuver squads there as part of a base of fire in the weapons squad, and if operating in OOTW/COIN it can be attached to and move with patrols as appropriate in much the same way as M240s were.  Much like the USMC and the Carl Gustav, reading "habitually attached" as "let's make them organic" is a scar of the Afghanistan theatre I suspect, and doesn't make sense if we're looking at issuing these things to play to their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses.

stancrist said:

I imagine that's probably because the slide was created solely to show what weapons the PGS and IAM would replace.  

I agree.

stancrist said:

Yup.  As I said 10 days ago in the PDW thread, "If a new, larger and heavier semi-auto [grenade launcher] should be developed and fielded, a grenadier so equipped probably would carry no secondary weapon, as is typical of XM25 users seen in Afghanistan photos and video."

When the M79 was introduced, the grenadier was issued a 1911 for self-protection, isn't it?

Then the M203 was designed so the grenadier could have also a rifle.

I don't know how things will change after the grenadier will be issued a PGS... which seems to be the OICW without the "kinetic energy" part of the weapon.

By the way, the PGM silhouette seems to be expressly selected so it doesn't look like the XM-25 (is there a "no bullpup" policy in the US Army ?)

gatnerd said:

This is all very exciting. Obviously I'm super stoked off the airbursting grenade launcher. Hopefully they decide to pursue something with more emphasis on lethality/bang vs flat trajectory, as the newest gens of smart optics can counter pretty steep trajectories.

Well, judging by the drawing of the notional PGS, caliber is to be much bigger than the 25mm of the XM25, so apparently the plan is to increase lethality/bang.

But the slide shows an example of shooting a grenade into the narrow opening of a bunker, so my guess is that the Army wants to have a pretty flat trajectory.

gatnerd said:

But the Individual Assault Munition is also very interesting. I'm curious whether this will be LAW M72 size, or AT4 sized, and whether it will be optically equipped or just those flip up irons. 

The IAM is meant to replace both the BDM and the AT4 CS, so I'd think it will need to have comparable destructive power. 

That likely means IAM will be of at least AT4 size and weight.  Since it's disposable, I expect sights will also be "flip up irons."

gatnerd said:

The 120mm seems like the most lethal but hardest to develop. 120mm power, 69 round loadout, with a accurate man portable launcher that can be gone in 3 minutes. 

What comes most to mind is perhaps a 81mm using the Saab MAPAM munition, which gives 120mm level fragmentation but in a smaller shell?

MAPAM or something like it.  The man-portable mortar requirement rules out 120mm.  That means it will have to be 81mm.

Refleks said:

IMO a HVGL would be quite useful but belongs at platoon level, by virtue of its size, weight and effective range.

???  Where does it say that the PGS would be a HVGL?