US Army tests smart-rifle scope

[calyco]

Guess no more spray and pray!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26158016

The US Army is testing a "smart rifle" technology designed to improve the accuracy of shots.

A spokeswoman confirmed reports that its equipment testing specialists had acquired six TrackingPoint rifles as part of efforts to identify state-of-the-art kit.

The tech allows the user to place a virtual tag on a target seen through the weapon's scope.

If the trigger is pressed, it fires only if the gun is correctly lined up.

This prevents errors such as trigger jerk, range miscalculation and accidental firing from being a problem.

In addition, a Linux-based computer built into the scope can compensate for 16 calculated variables, including temperature, the expected spin drift of the bullet and the direction the wind is blowing.

Scope view
A TrackingPoint weapon is supposed to refuse to fire until a red dot is lined up with a tagged target
"I can only train a soldier so much," Lt Col Shawn Lucas, of the army's Program Executive Office (PEO) soldier division, told Army Times.

"However, for a relatively small investment, I can make a significant increase in probability of hit and overall effectiveness by making an investment in advanced fire control."

But one independent observer said the technology would not turn every soldier into a sniper.

"This isn't a revolutionary technology, but essentially laser-designation 'tagging' adapted from common use in more complex weapons systems for use on small arms," said Peter Quentin, of the defence-focused Rusi think tank.

"It is not going to create 'super-snipers' because it still cannot do what is the truly smart aspect of their skills - a full assessment of weather and other conditions that will affect the flight of the bullet, and [which] therefore requires considerable calculation to determine adjustments to the aim.

"But while this does not deepen capabilities, it has the potential to broaden them, improving the accuracy of larger numbers of less specialist personnel by enabling the 'retagging' of a target rather than retaking of a shot."

Precision tactics

According to the Austin, Texas-based company TrackingPoint, the addition of its scope to a rifle delivers five times the first-shot success rate of traditional systems at distances of up to 1,200 yards (1.1km).

TrackingPoint gun
The scopes use a laser range finder to lock onto a moving target
An associated app can also stream live video from the scope's head-up display to a smartphone or tablet - allowing the shooter's tags to be monitored.

Civilian versions of its shooting systems cost between $10,000 and $27,000 (£6,030 to £16,280), depending on the weapon used.

"We believe this technology will revolutionise the effectiveness of our fighting forces as they perform their duty for our country," chief executive John Lupher told the BBC.

The company is not the only one trying to make gunfire more accurate.

The Pentagon's Darpa research unit is developing a separate sniper scope called the One Shot XG that measures crosswinds gusting up to 54km/h (33.6mph), the range to the target and a resulting confidence score.

One Shot XG
Darpa is developing its own "smart" sniper scope to improve the accuracy of shots
Lockheed Martin is taking a different approach by developing self-guiding bullets that can steer themselves towards a target by using tiny fins to adjust their course mid-air in order to hit laser-designated targets at distances of more than a mile.

Mr Quentin suggested the demand for such technologies was growing because of a tactical shift away from the use of suppression fire, used to fix an enemy in one position, towards a precision model.

"Precision is required when operating amongst populations, such as Afghanistan, where targets must be positively identified and civilian casualties avoided at all costs," he said.

"In such environments first-time hits and avoidance of collateral damage are paramount - it is not just about what you hit, but who you miss.

"Such systems, therefore, offer the potential to broaden the capability of forces to deliver accurate fire on positively identified targets, but ultimately they can only be as smart as the personnel that operate them."

 

[Doppel]

I wondered when they would do something like this. Those rifles basically allow a total newb with almost no training to make shots previously achievable only by experienced marksmen.

 

[Genx87]

Hahaha upto 27K per unit. I am sure the military will order enough to let this guy retire 12 times over.


Although the Lockheed's idea may actually make this idiot somewhat right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

 

[CrackRabbit]

Hax?

 

[Phanuel]

Like they said, wind calls, will be the limiting factors. I don't see this tech going anywhere near a battlefield for a long time.

 

[BoberFett]

"A TrackingPoint weapon is supposed to refuse to fire until a red dot is lined up with a tagged target"

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Fern]

Just leapfrog on up to smart bullets.

http://www.dailytech.com/SelfGuided+Bullet+is+a+Soldiers+Best+Friend/article23927.htm

Fern

 

[StrangerGuy]

Hahaha upto 27K per unit. I am sure the military will order enough to let this guy retire 12 times over.


Although the Lockheed's idea may actually make this idiot somewhat right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

You'll think the US govt spends billions of good money on small arms would simply have adopted a better performing caliber than the anemic 5.56mm, but no.

 

[Pocatello]

The U.S Army has spent a lot of money on small arm tech, such as a better rifle, better bullets, most of the projects got canned later on. The regular foot soldiers still soldier on with M-4 carbine (a shorter version of the M-16) in 5.56 mm caliber, essentially the same as the grunts in the 1960s in Vietnam. The most improvement are the night vision technology, communication, and the eye-view of the battlefield provided by the drones.

 

[Phanuel]

You'll think the US govt spends billions of good money on small arms would simply have adopted a better performing caliber than the anemic 5.56mm, but no.

What round do you propose instead? 6.8spc? Even the Rooskies stepped down from 7.62mm to 5.45mm.

 

[Genx87]

You'll think the US govt spends billions of good money on small arms would simply have adopted a better performing caliber than the anemic 5.56mm, but no.

What's wrong with the 5.56? It allows for a larger battle load and provides high accuracy on target.

 

[OverVolt]

What's wrong with the 5.56? It allows for a larger battle load and provides high accuracy on target.

All weapons are trending this direction. Its the bullet weight pure and simple. You have to carry that shit and its not light.

 

[Paratus]

Arstechnica looked at this last year. Their editors were hitting plate sized targets at 1000 yards while never having fired a rifle before.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/03/bullseye-from-1000-yards-shooting-the-17000-linux-powered-rifle/

 

[unokitty]

Military contractors are very good at generating publicity for their expensive gadgets.

I spent 15 months and 28 nights walking a perimeter in a jungle. Any bets about how many nights out in the rain these new gadgets would survive?

In the jungle I was in, it was often a challenge to see 10 feet. Spotting a target at 1000 meters? Not in my experience.

Though, I'm sure that this new toy provides an excellent range experience.

I'm also sure that it is potentially very good at generating huge profits for its defense contractor.

How about a tools that's a little more useful?

How about something to detect IEDs?

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71

 

[JTsyo]

Hax?

This is the same concept as some hax in FPS game. Hax like this help prevent admins from finding hackers quickly.

 

[Nintendesert]

What's wrong with the 5.56? It allows for a larger battle load and provides high accuracy on target.

In the hunting world it's a varmint round used to kill ground hogs and coyotes. You can't even legally use it to hunt bigger game in many states.

Humans are bigger game.

Feel free to look at some of the anecdotal stories of the innefectiveness of the 5.56 at range against Taliban targets.

I still feel the 5.56 was chosen due to higher ammo loadouts for fully automatic M16s in Vietnam to be used by concripts that had limited marksmanship skills. We don't fight like that anymore.

The infantry will be better served with better protective gear, lighter gear and more durable weapons than this thing. Dropped in the mud, bashing someone's head in, dropped on a rode, run over by a vehicle will it still function?

Maybe it'll be a nice gadget for snipers.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I've seen the TrackingPoint system demo-ed. It's pretty impressive, and military sniper duties seem like a great application for it.

 

[Scotteq]

In the hunting world it's a varmint round used to kill ground hogs and coyotes. You can't even legally use it to hunt bigger game in many states.

Humans are bigger game.

Feel free to look at some of the anecdotal stories of the innefectiveness of the 5.56 at range against Taliban targets.

I still feel the 5.56 was chosen due to higher ammo loadouts for fully automatic M16s in Vietnam to be used by concripts that had limited marksmanship skills. We don't fight like that anymore..

With Respect To 5.56 Nato ammo - I always heard the intentions/justifications for it are that soldiers could carry roughly twice the ammunition for the same combat load. And that the theory at the time was more about Maiming the other side, rather than killing outright. Why? Because if the guy is dead, his buddies will just keep fighting. If he's maimed, then he has to be carried out. Which removes more enemy soldiers from the fight. Also, tending to more wounded puts a little more pressure on the enemy's logistics.


In Afghanistan, such close quarters combat is more rare, and (as pointed out) the lighter bullet has issues at longer range.

 

[trenchfoot]

I've seen the TrackingPoint system demo-ed. It's pretty impressive, and military sniper duties seem like a great application for it.

So now I wonder if the SEALs that simultaneously shot those three Somali pirates were using these newfangled optics.

 

[trenchfoot]

With Respect To 5.56 Nato ammo - I always heard the intentions/justifications for it are that soldiers could carry roughly twice the ammunition for the same combat load. And that the theory at the time was more about Maiming the other side, rather than killing outright. Why? Because if the guy is dead, his buddies will just keep fighting. If he's maimed, then he has to be carried out. Which removes more enemy soldiers from the fight. Also, tending to more wounded puts a little more pressure on the enemy's logistics.


In Afghanistan, such close quarters combat is more rare, and (as pointed out) the lighter bullet has issues at longer range.

This reminds me of the bean counters who figured out how many $$$ worth of munitions were expended for each enemy combatant killed in Desert Storm. When lives are at stake, expense figures get thrown out the window, along with the morals and laws that "civilize" us.

 

[Nintendesert]

With Respect To 5.56 Nato ammo - I always heard the intentions/justifications for it are that soldiers could carry roughly twice the ammunition for the same combat load. And that the theory at the time was more about Maiming the other side, rather than killing outright. Why? Because if the guy is dead, his buddies will just keep fighting. If he's maimed, then he has to be carried out. Which removes more enemy soldiers from the fight. Also, tending to more wounded puts a little more pressure on the enemy's logistics.


In Afghanistan, such close quarters combat is more rare, and (as pointed out) the lighter bullet has issues at longer range.

I've heard that theory too in respect to landmines and why they just take a foot off and not vaporize.

With respect to injured, people still fight while injured. It's especially an issue if your opponent is high as a kite.. :\

I really think ultimately the people that make big defense appropriations like shiny toys rather than tools that would make a real difference. So debate on the bullet is really just for us, I have little hope it would ever change.

 

[rommelrommel]

So now I wonder if the SEALs that simultaneously shot those three Somali pirates were using these newfangled optics.

No, and fuck no.

Any sniper making a shot like that is not going to want a computerized nanny making his decisions.

This thing can't wind dope and is no good for moving targets. It's just a ballistic compensator with a laser designator.

 

[Scotteq]

I've heard that theory too in respect to landmines and why they just take a foot off and not vaporize.

With respect to injured, people still fight while injured. It's especially an issue if your opponent is high as a kite.. :\

I really think ultimately the people that make big defense appropriations like shiny toys rather than tools that would make a real difference. So debate on the bullet is really just for us, I have little hope it would ever change.

Yarrr...


Most Soldiers have to deal with what they're issued... OTOH, we get to drool over 7.62 SCAR pron... With Added 40mm Rainbow and Puppy Launcher

 

[werepossum]

"A TrackingPoint weapon is supposed to refuse to fire until a red dot is lined up with a tagged target"

What could possibly go wrong?

LOL That was my first thought. A rifle that won't fire is a club.

In the hunting world it's a varmint round used to kill ground hogs and coyotes. You can't even legally use it to hunt bigger game in many states.

Humans are bigger game.

Feel free to look at some of the anecdotal stories of the innefectiveness of the 5.56 at range against Taliban targets.

I still feel the 5.56 was chosen due to higher ammo loadouts for fully automatic M16s in Vietnam to be used by concripts that had limited marksmanship skills. We don't fight like that anymore.

The infantry will be better served with better protective gear, lighter gear and more durable weapons than this thing. Dropped in the mud, bashing someone's head in, dropped on a rode, run over by a vehicle will it still function?

Maybe it'll be a nice gadget for snipers.

Gotta remember also that the 5.56mm was first selected by the Air Force, a branch unlikely to fire its rifles in battle. I suspect that the 5.56mm was selected as much as possible to forestall adoption of the British .280 (which ironically would make a near-perfect infantry round) and thereby retain NATO leadership for America. Also, the round was selected for general use at a time when we thought typical battle distances would be 100 - 200 meters (basically inside artillery danger close range, otherwise just send a shell) and when our immediate opponents were 100 pound men in light silk. Also need to remember that the original round was only barely stabilized and did horrendous damage. It was only when we over-stabilized the bullet (to add penetration and increase range) and especially went to short barrels that we began to see problems as the bullet no longer tumbled readily.

I've seen the TrackingPoint system demo-ed. It's pretty impressive, and military sniper duties seem like a great application for it.

Wouldn't the need to adjust for wind kind of invalidate this for long range use?

 

[rommelrommel]

Wouldn't the need to adjust for wind kind of invalidate this for long range use?

Maybe a squad marksman could use it. No actual sniper is gonna use this thing. They have a rangefinder, tables, their spotter, and their training which far surpass what this does.