Talk:Advanced Individual Combat Weapon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grenade Launcher[edit]

hey i'm a little curious as to how this greande launcher reloads, it may be a little like the Metal Storm VLE pistol, where it inserts a tube into the back, the tube contains the rounds in a line. please if some one knows how the grenade launcher reloads then post a reply :) Frexe

Yes, that is how it realoads. :)--Never29 09:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Copied from User talk:Aaron Brenneman.
The redirect you did to AICW has completely vandalised the page and I do not think you understand anything about the subject matter. You have redirected AICW to Metal Storm for no apparent reason, further AICW is not the property of Metal Storm but DSTO. Can you please explain what you are doing here? --Never29 08:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Never,
Thanks for opening some dialog about this.
  • Firstly my edit summary said "#REDIRECT Metal Storm as this weapon is not in production." Which pretty much sums it up. For evidence, look at the references provided in the article.
  • Metal Storm press release that states "31 August 2005 Metal Storm Limited (ASX trading code: MST and NASDAQ Small Cap ticker symbol MTSX) today announced the successful test firing of the Advanced Individual Combat Weapon (AICW)".
  • Metal Storm "CEO Corner" on September 8 2005 makes it clear that there has been no movement at the station when it says, "Since the demonstration, we have been in discussions with a number of potential industry partners about taking the AICW concept forward as a commercial project. Watch this space."
  • world.guns.ru website puts this squarely into WP:NOT a crystal ball a crystal ball when it states "At the present time AICW weapons are available only as the "3rd generation technology demonstartors", that completed first live-fire trials (as a complete system) in the summer of 2005. Current Australian MOD plans state that ADF may start to purchase AICW systems in around 2010-2012."
  • So the options for this article (which looks quite good but needs some NPOVing to reduce the advertorial tone) appear to be
  • Merge into the Metal Storm article, or
  • Be sent to AfD as advertising.
brenneman(t)(c) 12:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Redirect !![edit]

Wiki has many other noteable experimental or developmental weapons. The OICW for one is a direct competitior to AICW (AICW is better) yet is not in production nor will it be after US DoD abandonded the weapon. To roll AICW into Metal Storm is wrong and improper. AICW wasn't even developed by Metal Storm they were simply a partner. Further attempts to delete this page are only petty vandalism and will be reported as such. Blargon 00:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blargon, thanks for discussing this. The Metal Storm homepage is pretty clear that this "partnership" still means that they'll be the ones filling the orders. Do we have any evidence that this is any more notable than the thousands of projects that DSTO (not to mention their overseas counterparts) have running every minute? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hmmm its only the biggest leap in technology for the last 400 years[edit]

I think that justifies its inclusion and separation from other projects worked on by DSTO. It is like saying the nuclear bomb should not be included on wiki in its own right because it is not yet available for production. You do understand the significance of AICW? It is a scoop. In terms of defence it is the nuclear bomb. It changes everything. --Never29 06:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is combat in 1605.


Four hundred years? That makes this bigger than the nuclear bomb. This is a rifle and a grenade launcher stuck together. The MRE made a bigger impact than this will, if it ever goes to production. And, even if were the biggest thing since, say, the rifle, we still shouldn't include it until it gains notability. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we don't do "scoops."
brenneman(t)(c) 07:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Expert or Wiki Nerd?[edit]

There is a reason why AICW is not in production yet, the technology is way too advanced - they have only just discovered that the concept is feasible (within the realms of physics) Before that nobody could combine kenetic energy to integrate components. That is why the United States government spent over $100 MILLION dollars trying to develop it (Source DSTO press release, July 2005) and eventually gave up. You are saying that it is a scoop and wikipedia is a tertiary source; implying AICW is not "notable". That is so silly i will not even argue it, but i will just link you to the School of Defence studies at Ausralian National University. You can read what they have to say. But of course, if a Professory of Defence Studies from ANU, a tertiary institution ranked 16th in the WORLD by the Times Higher Education Supplement, is not a reputable enough source, i don't know what is. So whats next, discredit the research of Harvard, and Columbia? The ovarian cancer vaccine is not notable because its only in trial stages?

How much technical knowledge of defence and weaponary do you have, Brenneman, or are you just a gun buff? --Never29 09:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/sdsc/publications.php

Umm, where to begin?
  • Ok, how about "kinetic energy weapon"? Marketing hype aside, if I throw a rock at your head, it's delivering kinetic energy. If there is some super-sekrit cutting edge something about this proposed weapon, it's not in the article.
  • Government spending does not equal notability. That's what governments do is spend money. And $100M... you mean like was spent to develop innovative approaches to promote healthy marriages?
  • Actually, you said that it was a "scoop". If we have reputable coverage that demonstrates notability, that's one thing. The links provided in the article did not. Your link is a bit vague. Was there some publication in particular there you wanted to show?
  • Finally, as to my background, to play the man and not the ball is a sure sign of a weak argument.
    brenneman(t) 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes there is a research paper presented by Professor Desmond Ball posted up there at the recent Warfare Conference explaining how as the capablities of tanks to fight in urban areas are increasingly constrained (low firing range) dense targets and how AICW is a breakthrough in solving the infeasability of long held assumptions about warfare because it is light enough to be used by foot soldiers. The article was really about Urban Warfare and not AICW, but it defines and describes AICW in one section as the weapon that will change everything - the end of "modern" rifle combat as we know it. ----Never2902:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, if that isnt a contradiction i dont know what is! You have basically accepted you don't understand the concepts of AICW, basic defence or the scientific aspects of weaponary, yet argue AICW is non notable, when its entire notability is based on the fact it is a technological revolution, the first feasible integration of two weapons into one that is usable by an individaul (not done since the bayonet). When i question your obvious lack of knowledge from the statements you have made, you accuse me of 'playing the man, not the ball'. I'm not trying to make this personal on purpose, and I have a lot of respect for you, but perhaps you have over-edited what appeared to be a mere bad-vertorial for a firearm which is actually a scientific breakthrough for the Defence Industry. ----Never29 02:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC
  • Hmm. You may not have noticed this, but I'm trying to be nice. It wouldn't hurt for you to do the same. Please try to contain your enthusiasm and be precise, ok?
  • I notice that you've ignored my first two points, and replied to the fourth by again attacking me, as opposed to countering my arguments.
  • Have a look at the first version of this page. It pretty much sums up what this is: a slight upgrade on existing technology. Are you not aware that, right as I am typing this, someone is firing a combined rifle/grenade launcher somewhere?
  • While the Metal Storm concept is interesting, and anything that lightens the burden that infantry carry is good, how exactly has it only just been demonstrated to be "within the realms of physics" as you say? Just what is it that you think this is?
  • Penultimately, the page you've linked to has four papers and several working paper authored by Desmond Ball. None of these appear to be what you're referring to.
  • [1] Transforming the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for Information Superiority (from 2005)
  • [2] Masters of Terror: Indonesia's Military and Violence in East Timor in 1999 (from 2002)
  • [3] The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP): Its Record and Its Prospects (from 2001)
  • [4] Maintaining the Strategic Edge: The Defence of Australia in 2015 edited (from 1999)
  • And finally, what exactly are your qualifications? I don't normally talk much about my background. I have served, and do have a science degree or two. Do you really want specifics?
brenneman(t)(c) 03:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are blowing things out of proportion, we are arguing about something that from both our discussions is definately notable enough to be on wiki - it is just the degree of notability we can't agree on, so lets agree to disagree. :)--Never29 15:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was in some degree responding the tone of your first message. I'm happy with a de-advertised article here.
      brenneman(t)(c) 16:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes I am happy with the current state of the article aswell. Originally I just wanted to attribute my sources; such as Stephen Forbes, the officer in charge of the AICW Project. I was unaware that was considered "bad-vertorial" no worries, Im happy with the current article, its good we could work together for the greater good. --Never29 23:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weight[edit]

The big advantage this design has over the OICW is that it's supposedly lighter, correct? But the specs table says it's actually heavier. Clearly, one fact is wrong. Anyone know which one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.118.234 (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is old now, but jic someone else wants to ask or make the same edit. The OICW fired 20mm grenades, significantly smaller than the 40mm grenades fired by the AICW. The two systems are not directly comparable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.167.17 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AICW was still supposed to be lighter than the OICW due to using this system, and yet ended up being heavier. Late model OICW switched to 25mm grenades, those are half as heavy as 40mm grenades (with cases) and so once you incorporate that the AICW rounds had no cases and the OICW carried 5 rounds instead of 3, you're probably at the point where the weight of the launcher component's ammo was about the same. Bones Jones (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bones Jones, cite a source that says it was meant to be lighter than the OICW as one of its design goals or that its failure to do so is why it was rejected and then you can add it. Until then, the relative weight of the OICW is as irrelevant as saying its lighter than Mk 19 Grenade Launcher and just an expression of your opinion on the outcome of the project. After all it IS significantly lighter than carrying both an AUG and a multi-shot 40mm grenade launcher so you could just as easily argue it was successful by the same token Khitrir (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/D48C7550-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9
"The lack of a separate magazine or mechanical trigger assembly for the second barrel means that an AICW incorporating Metal Storm technology could be lighter and simpler than a weapon such as the US Army's Objective Infantry Combat Weapon (OICW)."
In other words, this source regards the two weapons as directly comparable, and directly states the technology ought to make AICW lighter than OICW. I mean not to mention it's kind of a no-brainer that that the AICW wasn't supposed to be heavier than a system intended for the same role that was rejected because of its weight. It's also actually not lighter than carrying an AUG and a multi-shot grenade launcher, a standard-length AUG (swinging it in your favour since the one on the AICW was carbine-length) plus a loaded Russian GM-94 3-round grenade launcher only weighs 9.4 kg, so the AICW is still half a kilo heavier. Gets even worse if you use a China Lake Launcher to model the weight since then it's only 8.23 kg. So no, it failed no matter what you try to compare it to. Bones Jones (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an authors opinion, not a project goal. I'm not going to start/continue an edit war over this, I'll just try and think of a way to phrase it that doesn't pretend the two weapons were directly comparable.
Your math is wrong though - you've used an unloaded weight for the AUG and used the weight including the optic for the AICW(~1kg for the ITL Viper multi-purpose rifle sight[1]). Also the GM-94 uses the smaller 43x30mm specifically designed less powerful than full sized grenades for use in close quarters urban combat and is not comparable. A comparison between the Loaded AICW and a Loaded AUG + Loaded China Lake Launcher + Viper optic would be valid though the China Lake is not self-loading like the AICW effectively is. Khitrir (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter: the two weapons are both combination grenade launchers and carbine rifles. "Comparable" does not mean "the same." Bones Jones (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It means comparable. Should we point out on every 7.62x51 rifle page that it weighs more than the M4? Of course not. Its relevant on the M14 page because the M16 and its variants had a specific role in replacing it as standard-issue, but its not relevant to them all. Khitrir (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might as well say you can't compare the AGS-17 to the Mk 19 because the AGS-17 is only 30mm. Nevermind that they're the exact same type of weapon, clearly that doesn't matter. Bones Jones (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the AGS-17 and the Mk19 are far more similar than the AICW and OICW. High Velocity Airburst rounds really are different to 40mm grenades in role and use, thats why they moved on to the XM-25 which was fielded in addition to M203s and M320s not instead of. That's why the QTS-11 and the K11 (which ARE directly comparable to the XM-29) also aren't replacing UGLs. Hell, there is way more difference between the AICW and the OICW than there is between Assault Rifles and Battle Rifles and they're distinct enough to warrant entirely separate classifications. Khitrir (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, not classifying the XM25 as a grenade launcher has more to do with organisational issues than what the thing actually does, particularly since one of the proposed replacements for it is a system using the XM25 fire control system with 40mm SAGM grenades. The whole point of the airburst is it renders the need for arcing fire moot and gets the shot on target faster: retaining the 40mm is because the 25mm calibre is dick-all use for special rounds like smoke and flares because it isn't big enough. Even more obviously they wanted to replace the Mark 19 with the XM307, which does fire 25mm airbursting grenade rounds. Sure, it's supposed to be a grenadier weapon rather than a replacement for every infantry weapon, but are you trying to imply that wasn't what AICW was supposed to be? You really think every Aussie trooper was going to hump around one of these ridiculous contraptions?
Metal Storm's triple-grenade system always had horrible weight issues, the underbarrel version (3GL) was trying for a goal weight of 5 pounds loaded, which is still two-thirds the weight of an M4 carbine and would have been ridiculous to use. It looks like it was way worse for the AICW given it managed to turn a dinky little 7.3 pound AUG carbine into a monstrosity that weighed 22 pounds loaded.
Also, from the section I can actually read on Google, Jane's International regards it as directly comparable to other combination weapons: "(...) grenade launcher function of the AICW has greater range, improved fire control and an ideal loaded weight compared to other combination weapons of this nature." (Jane's International Defense Review, Vol. 38 p. 109, 2005) Bones Jones (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That citation from Janes would disagree with your stance though - it either says its comparable and lighter or its not talking about the OICW. Which is kinda weird, because the Defense Today article also specifically calls out the AICW as being lighter than the OICW. It also directly compares the weight of the fully loaded OICW (8.2kg, KE and HE modules loaded) to the ~7.5kg a fully loaded AICW (potentially after a "conservative" slimming down of 0.3kg depending on your reading) implying the 7.85kg with only the "AR loaded" on the page isn't correct. This page is a mess.
Side note: the 3GL was 5lbs in the stand alone version, with stock, sights etc. And that was an achieved weight, not a target weight. In that configuration it was competing with the 11lb MGL not with the 3 lb single shot M203.Khitrir (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's very little information on this weapon for whatever reason, but we have two sources so far that say there are comparable combination weapons. What other weapon do you think they're talking about, that weird ST Kinetics SSW thing that looks like a dinosaur? It also seems a little far-fetched that an article written in 2005, when the AICW's grenade launcher didn't even work yet, would be able to accurately predict the loaded weight of the system. Most likely they meant the only part that actually could be loaded at the time was loaded.
And you're now breaking your own rules by comparing a 3-round grenade launcher to a 6-round grenade launcher. It seems you just draw arbitrary delineations between classes of weapons wherever it suits your argument to do so, really. Can you find me a single source that says the 3GL was only supposed to compete with the MGL? because, you know, this guy seems to disagree:
"In the first few seconds a squad equipped with 3GLs can unleash three times the number of 40mm grenades on the enemy. Whether in a planned attack, or in response to an ambush by the enemy, this firepower can be the decisive element in winning the firefight and saving our soldiers' lives."
Oh dear, it seems someone didn't tell the CEO of Metal Storm that his gun wasn't supposed to be compared to the M203. Fancy that. As for you claim that it met its goal weight or that 5 pounds was the weight of the standalone, could you perhaps furnish me with something other than blank assertions that this is the case? Bones Jones (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point about the 5lb weight was that in UGL configuration it would weigh less than 5lbs, because it wouldn't have several of the parts on it. For example, the M320 in UGL configuration is ~3.3-3.6lbs. In stand-alone configuration it is 4.8lbs. Trying to draw comparison between the almost 5lb standalone M320 or the 5lb standalone MGL with the 3lb underslung version of the M203 isn't a fair one, you would need to use the weight of the underslung versions. Oh and even though its completely irrelevant to the point I was making, here is a source making that exact comparison just because you asked for it. And in further irrelevance, capacity isn't a delineator for class beyond "being a repeater" but caliber is. A 30 round assault rifle and a 25 round assault rifle are directly comparable. A assault rifle and an AMR are not, even if they somehow had the same capacity.
Now all the petty BS aside, the GL DID work in 2005 when the Defense Today article was run (not sure when in 2005 the Janes piece was published, don't have a copy but its possible as well) because that was when they did the live fire tests with the last generation of the weapon. The CTD ended not long after that - it was only a technology demonstrator after all. The real question is why would two sources say the AICW is lighter when the numbers say it is not. The most likely answer is that Modern Firearms' number is incorrect. This isn't without precedent - their numbers on the OICW have the goal weights not the ones actually achieved by the prototypes for example, so I would argue that they're not "equally reliable" sources to Janes and Defense Today. That said I don't want to get into an edit war if you're going to revert it the second I make the change thinking its about winning this argument. So whats your opinion? Khitrir (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's nice and all, but an opinion piece is hardly a decent source, particularly one with such an obviously promotional tone, particularly since you're trying to bounce that of something Metal Storm's own CEO said. Also comparing a weapon that only needs a stock attached to it to M203, a weapon that was never designed for a standalone variant and doesn't even have its own grip, is clearly going to get you an exaggerated figure. And even so, just how much lighter do you think the thing was going to get, loaded with three times as many rounds as an M203 and with a giant barrel to make up for part of the length of it being essentially a magazine tube? Have you seen how big a 3GL is mounted under a rifle? (That "bullpup" 3GL on the firearmblog link only gets around this by essentially being the GL equivalent of a Derringer). And as for your comparison, I guess you're right: comparing an assault rifle attached to a multi-shot semi-automatic grenade launcher to an assault rifle attached to a multi-shot semi-automatic grenade launcher is totally like comparing an assault rifle to an anti-materiel rifle. I guess under your rules I also can't compare a .22 pistol to a .50 AE Desert Eagle? One of them must not be a pistol, right?
And here we have more blank assertions. Live fire testing doesn't mean live fire testing of the grenade module. The most consistent reading of the data is that the AICW weight figure given to Defense Today reflected either a goal or a grenade module that either was not functional or was not complete: this is consistent with Modern Firearms saying the grenade launcher was not fully functional during the live-fire testing in summer 2005 (no grenades had been fired with live warheads and the airburst functionality was not present either in "late 2005"). In addition, the claims it's supposed to be lighter don't mean it ever actually was lighter. OICW was supposed to be lighter than OICW, after all. Bones Jones (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does mean live fire testing of the GL module, they explicitly mention it in the article. Even Modern Firearms says "that completed first live-fire trials (as a complete system) in the summer of 2005", brackets theirs, emphasis mine. Not having airburst is irrelevant because no version of it ever did, it was only an option if they wanted to continue development past the CTD, which they didn't. And its not "supposed to be" its explicitly "is lighter than" in both sources. The VX3 generation was the final iteration of the weapon, the one that went thru live fire tests of both the rifle and GL, and the one we have 2 statements about its weight on that contradict Modern Firearms. Especially when the value on Modern Firearms means that 3 grenades and a loaded magazine weighs 3 and a half kilos and that a single loaded AUG magazine now weighs 1.37kg instead of its usual ~0.5 just because its loaded in the AICW and not an AUG, both of which are absurd. Khitrir (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And for a basic sanity test, 3 traditional 40mm grenades and a loaded AUG magazine weigh about ~1.2kg, suspiciously close to that 1.37kg AUG magazine that the AICW apparently uses Khitrir (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think such blatant out of context quotes help you? Sure, it says it was tested as a "complete system" (presumably meaning both modules were on the rifle at the same time, rather than testing it in two pieces), then goes on to say that this testing did not include firing live rounds from the GL and that the airburst functionality had not been tested. And it was always supposed to have airburst, hence the bulked-up stock for putting the electronics in. That's probably where the 22 pound figure comes in, gun in airburst configuration. Bones Jones (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advanced Individual Combat Weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advanced Individual Combat Weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://defense-update.com/20051102_viper-sight.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Advanced_Individual_Combat_Weapon&oldid=1204549095"