The very ambitious Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or OICW, program by the U.S. Army did not lack both triumph and tribulation in its bid for infantry combat revolutionization. At the very core of this initiative was the XM29, a weapon system touted to redefine battlefield engagement but which fell short due to a confluence of technical, budgetary, and political setbacks.
The XM29 was developed jointly by Alliant Techsystems and Heckler & Koch. It combined three major components: a computerized sight system, a semi-automatic 20mm airburst grenade launcher, and an underslung carbine. The sight itself was rather complex, incorporating a laser rangefinder and thermal night vision with 6x optical sights. Despite advances in technology, the XM29 suffered from many chronic problems, not least of which were its weight, and cost, and the 20mm airburst round turned out to be ineffective.
The cancelation of the program in 2004 set the path for a block approach to weapon development; it’s now known as the OICW Increments. Increment One was dedicated to a stand-alone carbine platform. This increment produced the XM8. Increment Two focused on refining the 20mm airburst grenade launcher. Result, the XM25. Increment three would have combined the stand-alone platforms developed under the previous increments. By 2005, all but the bookwork on the OICW program was shelved.
Known colloquially as “The Punisher,” the XM25 was a direct descendant of the OICW program. It was a 25mm grenade launcher capable of firing programmable ammunition, touted as a “leap-ahead” weapon system. Unlike traditional 40mm grenade launchers, the XM25 utilized a computerized fire control system to detonate air-bursting ammunition with precision above targets, raining deadly fragments on enemy forces. However, there were a few large hurdles for the XM25 to overcome: its weight, complexity, and cost.
Several disadvantages were highlighted through field tests and experiments. This 14-pound system did not allow a soldier to carry another weapon for close-range engagements with targets. In addition, the sensitivity of the XM25 and its intricate nature raised several questions concerning the reliability of its usage during combat. In 2013, an Army special operator was slightly wounded due to a malfunction in Afghanistan, which drew attention to the risks of this system.
The problems with the program were exacerbated by delays and mismanagement. In 2016, the Pentagon’s Inspector General Office released a review citing possible mismanagement and conflicting priorities within the Army. It said the project should be canceled if it did not progress to production by the end of 2016. The Army put off the decision until July 2018, when it formally ended work on the XM25.
Although the program was canceled, the Army does retain the rights to the XM25 technical design package and the existing prototypes. That leaves the door ajar for possible future development or at least experimentation with the system. The Army is already working on air-bursting cartridges for existing 40mm grenade launchers and continues to show interest in helping soldiers engage targets that are behind cover.
Although the XM25 will not see active deployment, its technological advancements and legacy may well influence future weapon systems. At the same time, current Army efforts aimed at increasing infantry firepower through the adoption of the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle demonstrate the continued effort to improve combat capabilities. In that respect, whether it materializes again in a new form or goes to the back of history pages, the tale of the XM25 reverberates with the complexities and challenges of military innovation.