http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtGpWnLi45U

That 20mm (when they actually show shooting it close to start) seem to have quite heavy recoil.

Good luck fielding that.

I love the very sophisticated MILSPEC drop tests

Especially as they didn't show you whether they broke the gun!

From the discussion around the article, I understand that Koreans are planning to field the system in 2010, with 2 XK-11s per infantry squad.

According to Jane's Defence Weekly, it's completed eight months of testing and is expected to enter service in 2009.

I can't help making a comparison with the XM29 OICW, which was designed to the same specification (5.56mm rifle + 20mm grenade with airburst). Many years of development work resulted in a failure to make the weight targets and cancellation (at what cost, I wonder?). Are the Koreans less demanding in their requirements, or just more efficient at getting things done?

I am afraid you are completly wrong. Maybe the external similarities led you astray?

The problem is that the idea of OICW and Korean XK-11 is completly different. The Korean weapon is just an assault rifle with overslug bolt-action (yes, this is manually-operated weapon - sic!) 20-mm grenade launcher, and the 5,56-mm intermediate cartridge is primary armament and the 20-mm programmable grenade is secondary. It is something like like Australian AICW i.e. F88 assault rifle plus 40-mm Metalstorm grenade launcher. By the way, the idea of the XK-11 is close to the Singaporean LV ABMS (Low Velocity Air Bursting Munition System), which both of us had a chance to see at the Eurosatory in Paris.

The OICW is 20- or later 25-mm semiautomatic granade launcher with additional carbine for self defence. The American XM29 primary component is (or rather was) 25-mm airburst grenade, and secondary the 5,56 mm cartridge.

The philosophy of use the both weapons is different - the XK-11 is just assault rifle with grenade launcher with special ammunition - and nothing else - and the OICW is completly different type of small arm.

As far as I can see, the only practical difference in capability between the XK-11 and the XM29 is that the Korean's 20mm element is bolt-action while the US one is semi-automatic therefore can fire repeat shots a bit faster. Both fire time-fuzed 20mm airburst grenades, and since only 20% (at the most) of the Korean soldiers will be armed with this, I suspect that lobbing grenades will be their primary purpose - there are plenty of other troops with rifles around them.

The 25mm XM25 is a completely different animal as it has no rifle element.

Remov, I believe you exaggerate the difference between XM29 and XK-11.
The tactical capabilities are pretty much the same, the difference is no greater than between a semi-auto and a bolt action sniper rifle.

The key is that in addition to normal 5.56mm automatic fire both weapons are capable to use tiny 20mm HEAB grenades to hit opponents behind cover and both weapons have integrated thermal sights and LRF. Both weapons might even be be used for a kind of short- & medium-range sniping at night.

Both the widesperead emplyoment of thermal sights and the HEAB grenade create additional problems for the opponents, and likely reactions might be changes in shooting priorities, body armour, camouflage, field fortifications and changed requirement for fieldcraft (use of deception, different movement and choice of cover/concealment).

The difference between bolt action and automatic is really small. The difference between primary/secondary as you described it is theoretical, as the XM29 carbine element was effective over most combat distances and the choice between 5.56mm and 20mm fires is not a design element, but the soldier's decision.

Overall I'd say that the South Koreans kind of embarrass HK and the U.S.Army - but doubts about the 20mm HEAB effectiveness persist at the same time.

The final XM29 prototypes did not look too heavy, much slimmer from the earlier models, but did those same final models use the 20mm or 25mm grenades?





Does the South Korean Army plan on replacing all M203s and other 40mm grenade launchers with XK11s?

20mm. The 20mm + 5.56mm combo turned out to be too heavy, and there seems to have been some concern that 20mm wasn't big enough, so the 5.56mm element was deleted to save enough weight that the grenade calibre could be increased to 25mm - hence the change in designation to XM25.

So they never built a XM29 which included a 25mm GL and 5.56mm carbine combined, and instead went straight to the XM25? I am surprised it was still too heavy even in that final form. I figured by that stage the concern over the 20mm grenades and the resulting switch to the 25mm caliber was the main reason the XM29 was "cancelled."

Speaking of the XM25 has there been any news on that program? While 40mm grenades are certainly more powerful I still believe a higher velocity, flatter trajectory system like the XM25 could still be very useful.

Yeah, had that in mind while watching the vid. The amount of military stuff they are developing (K2 MBT, K-11 rifle, their AEGIS DDG) and at what appears to be an accelerated or record-pace compared to other, richer countries, makes it all mind boggling - to me at least. To answer Tony William's question:



I say, maybe both...? Maybe the latter.

Gad, it sometimes makes me wish I was South Korean....

I would love to find out how much each round of 20mm HEAB for the K-11 costs. Also, it would be interesting to find out how they intend to conduct training with the weapon. Range shoots (with TP rounds?) for weapon proficiency are one thing, but how would you simulate its effects in MILES-type exercises? Also, the doctrine for the weapon's employment would be great to know. Sadly, most info out there is on the tactics and technology, while leaving out the more important logistics of the system.

Is there any other ammo than HEAB? For example light HEAT against lightly armored targets? Though HEAT in 20mm is not much, it could be enough say for armored cars, no?

About 30-40mmm RHAeq CE penetration with small behind-armour effect. That's not worth it imho.

They're fighting to keep it going and still quoting 2014 as the planned ISD, but the effective cancellation of the XM307, combined with the emergence of airburst systems, MV ammo and other goodies for 40mm guns, is posing an obvious threat.

The cost lies mainly in the very precise time fuze needed. One ammo manufacturer told me that HEAB rounds cost 10x as much as ordinary impact-fuzed ones, but as he wasn't offering HEAB rounds at the time perhaps he was biased...

I suppose the training issues would be the same as with 40mm GLs.

I guess I am weird (I know it really) but I think the XM307 would actually be a more useful design than the XM25. I like the idea of the XM-25, but the 307 would have a lot of applications for vehicle based usages. I don't know whether the newer 40mm AGLs are any more accurate, but my understanding has always been that the Mk19 was NOT particularly accurate. Something about the combination of inaccurate ammo and the Heavy bolt slamming back and forth...

That LW25 might be somewhat useful, but at 63 lbs it is almost twice the weight i recall for the XM307, and it needs the external power supply. the page on DTIC claimed .5 mil accuracy, but I don't know if that is CEP, or average group size, or what.

Er, the Koreans, like the Japanese, can get things done faster because their MIC doesn't have as much oversight as that of the US. They're more willing to accept overbudgeting in order to mitigate delays. Their testing procedures, while just as stringent, do not have as much meddling from military entities (like, oh, the guys who'll be using the stuff) as US mil projects do. In a way, they let the contractors have greater control over the development process and fix problems after fielding. This results in a much more efficient system because, to be honest, Western militaries fix problems after fielding too; they just need twice as long to get to that point.

So far, they've been successful because they haven't tried to invent new stuff. Someone else (hint, hint) already invented (and sometimes proofed) the concept behind the stuff they're developing, so they already have a good idea of what they want to make, or even how to tweak it to make it work, before they start making it. The weaknesses in the system will only become apparent when the Koreans try to develop entirely new concepts.

That's like describing 95% of the world, dude.

For a country that was the first battlefield of the cold war, fought over and bombed back to the stoneage by everyone only 50 years ago - I'd say they are doing well beyond anyone's wildest expectations.

Literally zero to hero.

It's a little too early to say they are not capable or not going to try inventing something. Besides, inventing depends not only on brains, but also on funds - lots of it. I have no doubt they have the brains, they may simply not have the several million/billion USD sitting around for R&D.

If 20mm proves to be inadequate, maybe they will introduce 25 or even 40mm version of K11.

PS:
Specification
length: 860mm
weighs: 6.1kg
ammunition: 6 20mm grenades and 30 5.56mm bullets in each magazine
costs: ~ 16,000 USD
2 XK11 rifles to each squad.
started development in April, 2000.
prototype was completed in October, 2006.
approved for combat usage in May, 2008.
scheduled to be fielded in 2009.
overall budget for the development was about 18.5 million USD.
Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128883 (go to page 17 and 18)

The exporting South Korean industries (cars and such9 could not compete without successful R&D. The South Koreans jsut lack high-profile research results that could enter conventional knowledge.

South Korea is actually much more amazing and many negative remarks about it are just jealousy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipbuilding#...rn_shipbuilding

I don't know if we can write off the XM307 quite yet, but still it might not have too much of an effect on the XM25.

All these new 40mm grenade launcher technologies seem very promising but the higher velocity and smaller size of 25mm systems is an advantage. Right now, what I really want to see is a 40mm multi-shot grenade launcher combining a family of MV ammunition, smart air-burst capability, and a sight similar to that of the XM25.

The projectiles are closely related and use the same airburst technology, so losing one of the two planned systems for it pushes all the development costs onto the remaining one.


Easily enough done, albeit with a bulky six-shot revolver. All of the elements are available, and no doubt someone will put them together before long.

What was wrong with one Soldier / group with an M 79 40 mm???

I do understand, that´s one 5.56 mm rifle LESS per sqaud, but with new and improved ammo, and perhaps a recoil reducing system, that should be QUITE effective?

Hermann

Well the idea is the same, but that guy would be carrying a larger weapon (either the XM25, M32, or other multi-shot grenade launcher) since if you wanted a single shot 40mm grenade launcher you could just get a M203 or M320 attached to an assault rifle.

The XM25 would certainly be more compact than a six-shot 40mm grenade launcher with the same electronic sight, but I suppose our military (or the budget) will have to decide.

I know that we started with the GL being a standalone weapon, but has since been attached to the rifle as the M203 for over 40 years.

I am no grenadier though I've fired a few rounds through a borrowed M203, but I still wonder if it is not better to have the GL separate from the rifle again.

The GL attached the rifle makes the rifle heavy and unwieldy. And as a GL it is again overweight and unwieldy.

You carry the weight and bulk of the GL/rifle combo in your hands all the time even though you can only use one at a time. And even when you are out of GL ammo, you are still carrying all that weight in yout hands.

I think a good solution is to arm the grenadier with a lightweight carbine, and then separately carry a multishot GL as you would carry a separate LAW or claymore etc.

A carbine is light andd handy, and the separate multi-shot GL is a better GL than the slow single-shot one in the M203 combo.

Things also appear to be going that way, but I imagine the M320 will stay in service along side weapons like the M32 and XRGL40 if we stick with the 40mm.

Except in fields like fusion, robotics, combustion, detonics, etc. Just because you haven't heard of the results doesn't make them low profile - the vast amount of stuff that enters conventional knowledge without anyone knowing about it.

Er, that's true. I got lazy with words, sorry. What I was trying to say is that so far South Korea has not had to develop original warfighting concepts that require new technologies - or vice versa - the way the US has (for example stealth aircraft, FCS, and even the OICW). Most of the problems with US procurement can be attributed to bad bureaucracy, but the problems with US mil R&D are far more complex. Mostly, though, the problems boil down to one thing: People trying to come up with new stuff without being able to determine proper end-user parameters (in other words, creating solutions looking for a problem). The South Koreans have the advantage that so far, they've wisely based their military R&D on concepts other people have tried (and often failed at) before. Things might end up somewhat differently if and when they try to develop whole new concepts on their own because at that point the same problems plaguing the US MIC would plague theirs too.

The South Koreans plan on getting the XK11 in service by 2009 but we can't get the XM25 in service until 2014?

go Korea!

*wonder if we should just buy it from them? -> then again, I like the 25mm stand alone launcher idea more. I remember comments about the 5.56mm rifle being pretty weak on our version due to the extremily short barrel, that may have been false though. Didn't we also have a problem with the lethality of the 20mm grenade being quite weak?