40mm missile fired from grenade launcher

[dragon]

Ok interesting,

Raytheon Company successfully fired two Pike 40 mm precision-guided munitions from a standard tube grenade launcher during flight tests at Mile High Resources in Texas. Both rounds landed within the targeted impact area after flying more than 2,300 yards. (2.1 km). Weighing less than two pounds and measuring just 16.8 inches (42.6 cm) in length, Pike can be fired from a conventional, single-shot grenade launcher such as the M320 or EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launching Module). The maximum range of M320 grenade launcher is 437 Yards (350 meters).
Pike uses a digital, semi-active laser seeker to engage both fixed and slow-moving, mid-range targets,” said J. R. Smith, Raytheon’s Advanced Land Warfare Systems director. “This new guided munition can provide the warfighter with precision, extended-range capability never before seen in a hand-held weapon on the battlefield. Pike will become smarter and smarter as we continue to develop its capabilities,” said Smith. “In the current configuration, the warfighter will enter programmable laser codes prior to loading Pike into its launcher. Spiral development calls for multiple-round simultaneous programming and targeting with data link capabilities.”

Pike’s rocket motor ignites eight to 10 feet after launch and is nearly smokeless for reduced launch signature.

Additional Pike upgrades include the ability to fire it from platform-mounted launchers on small boats, all-terrain vehicles and small unmanned aircraft systems. The missile will extend the effective range of grenade launchers currently reaching 1,600 yards (1.5 km) using ballistic computing sights

link

[Sidewinder]

Wow.

[madd0ct0r]

A return to pike and shot?

[Adam Reynolds]

I wonder if this will lead to the US Army keeping 40mm, especially if they go with airburst ammunition for that weapon as well. Though that would lose the natural range advantage of the M25(the reason they went with 25 mm in the first place as it has a superior ballistic profile). But that would be where this comes in.

Hopefully this can also stop the trend of firing Javelin missiles across streets. When they are used like this the distance is so short they cannot possibly arm in time. Though the SRAW also should be used instead of the Javelin in this fashion. TOW has the same problem, but is not carried by infantry. Not sure what a better fit there would be.

[biostem]

Imagine if you could replace the clustered rockets found on many helicopters with these guided munitions! You could repurpose those smaller Cayuse helicopters into a fast, cheap, missile platform...

[Esquire]

Such a helicopter would basically be a more expensive Predator, unless I'm missing something. Which I freely ackowledge is possible, I'm hardly a missile expert.

[Simon_Jester]

The 40mm missile's warhead will almost certainly lack the firepower to destroy large, durable targets like tanks, so it's not a replacement for heavier guided missiles in that role. Plus, this thing is designed to work with a targeting laser at relatively short ranges. As a result, you'd sacrifice standoff range for your helicopter, which means it would have to fly closer to the enemy.

If this is a drone helicopter, obviously that doesn't matter, but still.

[Adam Reynolds]

If it could be fired at a reasonable range, it might actually be a great weapon for something like drone strikes as a means to lower collateral damage. Though there are already slightly heavier weapons with a proper standoff range like the Griffin that already does much less damage than Hellfire.

Not to mention the risk of a lower collateral damage weapon making strikes more frequent and causing even worse problems when they inevitably miss.

[Elheru Aran]

Would not this basically be a longer ranged, slightly more precise grenade? Because that's kinda how it's coming off to me.

[Gunhead]

A very large but precise grenade. Then again, article did not say what constitutes as a hit since the target area size wasn't told, so saying it's "accurate" is open to interpretation. If the effect is roughly the same as a standard 40mm grenade, you'd need a bunch of these to effectively saturate an area which can be done more effectively with dumber but higher payload weapons. The point target capability is intriguing as a light anti vehicle weapon, but a singular 40mm round is hard pressed to knock out anything with even light armor coverage. Other limitation is how many can anyone carry reasonably. They don't weight a lot but the physical size will put limitations on it. So unless they can give it more punch than a normal 40mm grenade it's a neat experiment but I don't see it being all that useful.

-Gunhead

[Sea Skimmer]

I wonder if this will lead to the US Army keeping 40mm, especially if they go with airburst ammunition for that weapon as well.

1) the plan was always to keep the M203. Just fewer of them, mainly unit leaders rather then every fire team. It can fire smoke and illumination rounds that won't work for a 25mm.
2) A program does exist for a low velocity airburst 40mm grenade for the M203, but using a VT fuse which is also required to sense wall edges, and burst beyond them. So a bit more complex then a normal VT fuse. Without this feature it'd be kinda useless.

Reason for a VT fuse is then you don't need a fire control system, though it will cost a lot more then per shot then a timed fuse round. Still a far more compatible idea with an M203 style launcher, and technology which was not possible when the OICW project began.

Though that would lose the natural range advantage of the M25(the reason they went with 25 mm in the first place as it has a superior ballistic profile). But that would be where this comes in.

They went with 25mm mainly because the ammo was lighter, and without a lot of ammo the concept of a dedicated grenadier is unworkable, the reason why the M79 was abandon in the first place even though it was much more accurate and longer ranged then the M203. The 25mm ballistics are better, but with a weapon the size of the M25 you could have a launcher for those newish 40mm medium velocity grenades which hit about 700m, double that of the normal rounds, if still well short of 1000m. And nothing like what the high velocity automatic grenade launcher rounds can go which is well over 2000m.

Hopefully this can also stop the trend of firing Javelin missiles across streets/

Why would you want a smaller guided missile for that instead?

When they are used like this the distance is so short they cannot possibly arm in time. Though the SRAW also should be used instead of the Javelin in this fashion. TOW has the same problem, but is not carried by infantry. Not sure what a better fit there would be.

Troops will shoot anything they have given the need. Javelin is proven to be able to lock onto and hit specific people.... so at that point its not like we need the warhead to explode. Still cheaper then killing the same person with an inflight refueled F-16.

Issue of SRAW, the Carl Gustav and the new production model of the M72 have all gone up though. Those certainly reduce the need for firing ATGMs. But inside 100m no guided weapon is going to make any sense, and Javelin and ilk actually can arm inside that kind of distance anyway. 40-65m is typical.

[Sea Skimmer]

Would not this basically be a longer ranged, slightly more precise grenade? Because that's kinda how it's coming off to me.

That would be the idea. An existing US Army requirement existed for a 40mm grenade that could hit a moving vehicle at 600-1000m (including small, slow UAVs) but this is a private Rathyeon venture for something rather more potent, in tune with the effective ranges of crew served weapons like the .50cal, AGLs and smaller recoilless rifles like the SPG-9. One might contend its a rather better idea because of that, but the Army seemed to have in mind an autonomous homing weapon while this thing is going to need a rather expensive laser designator. So I'm doubting it will catch on a project until some unreleated projects for very small laser designators produce usable hardware.

If it could be fired at a reasonable range, it might actually be a great weapon for something like drone strikes as a means to lower collateral damage. Though there are already slightly heavier weapons with a proper standoff range like the Griffin that already does much less damage than Hellfire.

Not to mention the risk of a lower collateral damage weapon making strikes more frequent and causing even worse problems when they inevitably miss.

Griffin, and the Navy Spike, and also now two different laser guided 70mm rockets turned missile projects are combat usable. An extremely small drone might have a use for a weapon like this, but remember if the range is short enough it would be nearly as easy and much cheaper (and allow more warhead) for the drone to simply drop a bomb on the target instead. And multiple projects for that already exist, including guided bomb versions of the 60mm and 81mm mortar bombs using GPS, and several other things. And heck Viper Strike, though that thing is actually around 45lb, but its worth mentioning since it was the first of this new wave of much more compact air weapons to see combat and redesigned out of the BAT anti tank weapon in a matter of months.

Such a helicopter would basically be a more expensive Predator, unless I'm missing something. Which I freely ackowledge is possible, I'm hardly a missile expert.[/quote

Be cheaper actually. The modern version of the Cayuse is about 2 million bucks. The US Army version of the Predator A drone meanwhile called Grey Eagle costs several times as much, though it can fly much longer and further. The much bigger Reaper drone meanwhile is around 15 million dollars, with a 3,000lb bomb load. Nothing is cheap about Predator drones and they aren't exactly small.

They are simply very useful because they can fly missions that would be largely impossible to conduct with similar sized manned aircraft. Most military drones are much much smaller, and attempts to weaponize them have largely failed because even a very small weapon completely neuters their persistence (the drag is as much the issue as the weight), which in turn highly undermines the point of flying them at all.

[Simon_Jester]

If it could be fired at a reasonable range, it might actually be a great weapon for something like drone strikes as a means to lower collateral damage.

Another problem there is that we often do drone strikes on relatively imprecise information like "he went inside that building, blow up the building." Lobbing a 40mm explosive at the building probably won't knock it down, and the odds of the target surviving the attack go up.

So not only are you hitting more targets and killing people with misses, you're having to hit the same target repeatedly, possibly randomly killing half the occupants of a building three times in a row before you finally get lucky and nail him on the fourth try.