I always thought it's a lot more reasonable for such weaponry to be fitted onto all terrain UGV that can follow a squad around the frontline and can carry ammo plus providing suppressing fire, that can also be air dropped with paratroopers swiftly, or to be outfitted with various models of weaponry to adapt to different combat situation, all while being cheaply made and very expendable
The problem is that UGV lack the mobility of infantry and the ease of control. I mean yeah you can drive it about but the OICW was optimized for infantry in Mount and vs forces in defile. If fighting in such one may find themselves in a building which isn’t the best place for a UGV.
The Airburst mode is meant to defeat forces under cover. The systems architecture of range finder, programming the round with range to time the Bursts so the shell has passed a door/window or is over the heads of its intended victims so it rains fragments on them.
Besides if you go that route why do the complex R&D? Just mount a Heavy MG, AGL or light auto cannon with airburst shells? Something like the M230LF which is already appearing on Utility vehicles like JLTV.
Both the US and ROK early on had AGL versions the Advanced Crew Served Weapon concept would have used the same or a beefed up versions of the OICW rounds in a belt feed with the same range finding capabilities. But in both cases they were canceled for similar reasons to the failure of Objective Individual Combat Weapons. Issues of lack of payload, significantly reduced suppressive capacity due to low rate of fire, small capacity of ammunition, heavy weight and high costs. the ROK entirely scrapped it’s the US had started earlier and actually had prototypes in trails. They were again canceled with a 12.7x99mm derivative lasting longer until it to was scrapped as to get the control it had a exceptionally slow rate of fire.
That said it’s not to say it’s a total dead end. Northrop Grumman has offered from time to time a derivative of the Bushmaster canon packing the XM25’s shells but mounted as a replacement for a .50 cal in M60 tank overhauls.
Cost on a product like OICW and ACSW is going to be based on numbers built. If it goes into mass production then the R&D cost drops. If it fails to do so then the cost is high. The specialized nature of the Airburst shell means a higher than average cost vs a dumb round. I mean if you want a low cost system I recommend following the architecture of the Neopup where it’s a weapon firing 20mm shells that are literally just 20mm naval shells crammed in a necked out 14.5mm round.
