New XM25 Grenade Launcher Announced by US Military

[Requia ☣]

That's hardly a fair comparison, I mean, the RPG7 is used to take on heavy armor and fortified positions.  The XM25 is useful for uh... trench warfare.  Yeah, if we ever go back to the trenches the XM25 will totally do more than the RPG7  

[The Johnny]

Is there an estimated price of these toys?

And how much is an AK-47 anyways?

[Requia ☣]

$30,000, with another $5,000 in options, according to Wikipedia.

Wiki also says an AK-47 is apparently as low as 30$ on the African black market, though that probably has a lot to do with it being stolen.  I don't know of Ak-47s being made new, but Venezuela bought 100,000 AK-103s at 520$ a piece.

[Persona Facade]

Can the grenade launcher push aside a barricade, knock a building over, advance on a machine gun position inside a building, or shelter a squad behind it for an advance?

Fact1 :  The morons in the Pentagon and the DoD keep trying to do everything on the cheap.  Add in a sexy high tech grenade launcher, they can justify using less armor.

Fact 2:  High tech sexiness is 20th century thinking.  Wars are won now based on endurance and birthrate...in short, on economics.  How long does it take to train an American soldier to use this launcher, as opposed to the 15 minutes it takes to train an insurgent on a perfectly good $50 RPG7 (Gary Brecher has the RPG7 as the all time best bang-for-buck weapon in history, and I tend to agree)?

Fact 1: Debatable; but your comment does remind me of a discontinued project involving a new prototype defensive system for our troops(not the exoskeleton). I'll see if I can gather enough information on it and give it its own home here later.

Fact 2:
High-Tech Sexiness=Yes
Economics=US wins

Now for the good stuff.

The XM25 Grenade Launcher will likely take a decent amount of time to train a troop to properly operate; however, the United States needs to utilize weapons that are more difficult to be used against us. If we employ technology that requires more advanced infrastructure and support in place to utilize we have the edge in warfare.

Grenade launchers are anti-infantry weapons, this is not meant as a means for combating armored vehicles. Grenade launchers have never knocked buildings over. Even an RPG will not knock a building over, it may cause some damage, however, as previously stated this weapon is meant to minimize collateral damage.

This grenade launcher is specifically made for tactical purposes such as breaking barricades, disrupting enemy movements, and taking out lightly fortified nests. Say you're behind a machine gun turret 30m away from an enemy squad utilizing this weapon, upon acquiring the distance they can fire a grenade directly onto your position and mess your shit up.

Saying numbers and money is all that matters merely causes an attitude of apathy towards our own resources and leads to a lack of innovation. The XM25 is a sign that our military, despite bureaucratic and slow to accept change by nature, still desires progress. Your attitude seems to imply every war is a war of attrition, when in fact this does not have to be the case.

That's hardly a fair comparison, I mean, the RPG7 is used to take on heavy armor and fortified positions.  The XM25 is useful for uh... trench warfare.  Yeah, if we ever go back to the trenches the XM25 will totally do more than the RPG7  

The RPG7 will not take out heavy armor, tanks will eat that shit. The RPG7 is also on a different level than a grenade launcher; grenade launchers are meant to combat infantry and lightly to non armored positions and enemies, the RPG7 is meant to take out fast, lightly armored vehicles and lightly fortified positions. Try taking down a tank with an RPG7 and you'll get owned.
But yes in trenchwarfare the XM25 will definitely always be the correct choice.

/end rant

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Fact 1: Debatable; but your comment does remind me of a discontinued project involving a new prototype defensive system for our troops(not the exoskeleton). I'll see if I can gather enough information on it and give it its own home here later.

Fact 2:
High-Tech Sexiness=Yes
Economics=US wins

You're an idiot.  I'll elaborate if you like.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Your attitude seems to imply every war is a war of attrition, when in fact this does not have to be the case.

Again, you appear to be an idiot.  It IS the case, the only difference being the attrition is money, not lives.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That's hardly a fair comparison, I mean, the RPG7 is used to take on heavy armor and fortified positions.  The XM25 is useful for uh... trench warfare.  Yeah, if we ever go back to the trenches the XM25 will totally do more than the RPG7  

The RPG7 is useful for a lot of things.  Breaking an ambush, for example.

[Persona Facade]

I am not arguing that adding this new weapon will not be used as an excuse to cut expenses elsewhere, but that does not make the weapon any less effective for its role.
Wars do not need to be wars of attrition if the attitudes of the occupied nations people are sympathetic to your cause or if you are aiding theirs, unfortunately we are not doing either currently, thus forcing our current wars to be wars of attrition.

Do not get me wrong; I am in no way saying that the RPG7 is useless. I am saying that it merely performs a different role than the XM25.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am not arguing that adding this new weapon will not be used as an excuse to cut expenses elsewhere, but that does not make the weapon any less effective for its role.

Yeah, and I'm talking about reality, and how this will make the overall force weaker.

Wars do not need to be wars of attrition if the attitudes of the occupied nations people are sympathetic to your cause or if you are aiding theirs, unfortunately we are not doing either currently, thus forcing our current wars to be wars of attrition.

Which comes down to economics.  Which means we lose.

Do not get me wrong; I am in no way saying that the RPG7 is useless. I am saying that it merely performs a different role than the XM25.

How so?

[Persona Facade]

I am not arguing that adding this new weapon will not be used as an excuse to cut expenses elsewhere, but that does not make the weapon any less effective for its role.

1st:
Yeah, and I'm talking about reality, and how this will make the overall force weaker.

Wars do not need to be wars of attrition if the attitudes of the occupied nations people are sympathetic to your cause or if you are aiding theirs, unfortunately we are not doing either currently, thus forcing our current wars to be wars of attrition.

2nd:
Which comes down to economics.  Which means we lose.

Do not get me wrong; I am in no way saying that the RPG7 is useless. I am saying that it merely performs a different role than the XM25.

3rd:
How so?

1st:
I believe you are correct in thinking the Pentagon could try to use this as an excuse to cut expenses elsewhere. However, if the public informs themselves well enough it could be prevented.
Not to mention if they discussed cutting expenses it should be within the same realm of combat, not a different one. Adding a grenade launcher to the military's arsenal should not have anything to do with body armor (which during the beginning of the War on Terror our troops armor did not protect against AK47 bullets anyway, not a justification for any of your perceptions). Now perhaps replacing another military weapon such as the M203 grenade launcher allowing for more tactical uses. While it could replace some of the M203 supplied to the troops the M203 does not need to be completely phased out in favor of the XM25. Flexibility is an important aspect of war.

2nd:
This means we need to change our battle strategy and how we choose what wars we participate. I am sure few people will argue the invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary, but I'm positive many will question the benefits of invading Iraq, unless you count surrounding Iran as a benefit.
Again elaborate.

3rd:
As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage. After a war who do you think is expected to pay for these damages? While it is often the loser the United States is on some sort of moral high ground claiming they are fighting for the aboriginals of the invaded state and not ourselves, thus we would end up paying the damage expenses. Using a weapon like the RPG7 in situations where the XM25 is to be used would cause much more damage and thus be far more costly.
So while the RPG7 could theoretically be used in similar situations it would prove to be very costly. You could bring up other aspects as to how the United States wages warfare on a scale far more devastating than either of these weapons, however, that is on a whole different scale and would require a discussion of its own.

[Adios]

$30,000, with another $5,000 in options, according to Wikipedia.

Wiki also says an AK-47 is apparently as low as 30$ on the African black market, though that probably has a lot to do with it being stolen.  I don't know of Ak-47s being made new, but Venezuela bought 100,000 AK-103s at 520$ a piece.

The AK47 is the most copied weapon in the world.

[Don Coyote]

As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage.

Who do you think we are fighting currently?

[Adios]

As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage.

Who do you think we are fighting currently?

The Redcoats, in their pretty battlefield lines, obviously.

[LMNO]

However, if the public informs themselves well enough it could be prevented.

I detect a subtle flaw in your argument.

[Don Coyote]

As previous stated: the XM25 is meant to disrupt infantry formations and used to take down lightly fortified positions without causing collateral damage.

Who do you think we are fighting currently?

The Redcoats, in their pretty battlefield lines, obviously.

I know right?