×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Military Deploys Personal Gunshot Detectors

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the shooter-games-just-got-less-unrealistic dept.

The Military 257

RedEaredSlider writes "A new warfighting technology will soon be making its way to Afghanistan. US Army forces will be getting gunshot detection systems, which can tell where a shot was fired from. Approximately 13,000 gunshot detection systems will be given to individual footsoldiers later this month, according to the US Army. The system, called Individual Gunshot Detector, has four small acoustic sensors and a small display screen attached to the soldier's body armor that shows the distance and direction of incoming bullets. The sensors are each about the size of a deck of cards and can detect the supersonic sound waves generated by enemy gunfire. It alerts the soldier of the shot's direction in less than one second."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

257 comments

Truth copies fiction (1)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534056)

Didn't they have this sort of thing in Deus Ex?

Re:Truth copies fiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534192)

They have it in every modern FPS, too. Except you need to get hit in those.

Re:Truth copies fiction (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534284)

So it's more like the ersatz "radar" display they have in almost every modern FPS.

Re:Truth copies fiction (2)

mdarksbane (587589) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534954)

Heck, try Marathon, back in 1993.

Games have all kinds of different rules for this sort of radar. I'm personally a fan of ones that require at least motion or sound to be able to function, instead of pretending that it's tracking every commando's cell phone or something.

Re:Truth copies fiction (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534208)

I immediately thought of the "red glow of pain" that most modern FPSes have to help you figure out where you're being shot from.

Re:Truth copies fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534218)

...and just about every other FPS as well.

I have a personal gunshot detector (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534534)

It's called my ears.

Re:I have a personal gunshot detector (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534738)

Ears won't help you as much in Afghanistan.

Re:Truth copies fiction (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534912)

Pretty sure I saw a thing on TV in the early 90's demonstrating a video-based device that could be used to track gunshots. It could even predict where the bullet would hit before it got there.

In this case, Id say fiction copied non-fiction.

asdgag (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534068)

aagsdgasdgsdg.dfff

13,000 gunshot detection systems? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534084)

13,000 gunshot detection systems will be given to individual footsoldiers...

Oh give me a break! How is each soldier going to carry 13,000 gunshot detection systems? Isn't one enough?

LOL he's right (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534294)

Sup dawg, I heard you like gunshot detectors, so I put 12,999 gunshot detectors in your gunshot detector so you can detect shots while you detect shots while you detect shots while you detect shots whi [FIELD TRUNCATED]

Re:13,000 gunshot detection systems? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534422)

That's my thoughts exactly. Slashdot editors are sorry wankers.

Re:13,000 gunshot detection systems? (5, Funny)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534672)

I think you misunderstood. Get a clue, there is only one detector!

What the system does is that it detects if someone fires 13,000 gunshots at you.

Re:13,000 gunshot detection systems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534852)

You must have been a great trial to your mother.

fireworks (2, Interesting)

memnock (466995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534088)

Would they foil this? They're loud. But don't move at the speed of sound.

I doubt it (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534342)

With experience, one can not only learn to distinguish gunfire from vaguely gunfire-like sounds (fireworks, backfiring cars and so forth), but get a pretty good approximation of the type of weapon being fired - sometimes even down to specific models. If a human ear can learn to make such fine distinctions then surely a purpose-built sensor can do at least as well.

Re:I doubt it (2)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534560)

Not necessarily, there are entire fields dedicated to creating sound analysis systems that don't even come close to the human ear - brain counterpart. For example, detecting beats in music, or recognizing syllables in speech.

Re:fireworks (1)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534424)

And what would be the point of throwing a firework at and enemy soldier versus a bullet?

Re:fireworks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534488)

Suicide?

Re:fireworks (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534496)

To throw off their gunshot detectors and prep them for an ambush from another direction.

Re:fireworks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534552)

Except if you have a guy throwing fireworks to distract them from your main ambush force, why not give that guy a real gun instead? That way he has a chance of actually inflicting some damage along with the distraction.

Re:fireworks (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534658)

Because the sound from the gunshot comes from the location of the gun, also known as the location of the soon to be dead guy doing the distracting.

Whereas the sound from a firework comes from the location of the firework which, if the guy has any sense at all, isn't the same as the location of the guy doing the distracting because he threw it.

Re:fireworks (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534980)

Except for the fact that if you're actively assisting the enemy by creating a distraction, you're quite deserving of the rounds that are going to be headed your way very, very soon, so the whole "soon to be dead" concept still applies.

Now I could see how the enemy could use this for propaganda value by getting kids to throw fireworks at specific places and times, coordinating with insurgent strikes, hoping we'll gun down some kids so they can parade it around on national TV. Wouldn't be the first time they've used such tactics.

Re:fireworks (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534708)

If it was an "ambush" you would probably try to have them surrounded anyway. And it takes how long to pivot 180 degrees? I know everyone wants to be the analytical spoilsport and think "how can we make this fail" but honestly making it fail is just not even a big deal. It's only even going to be a fraction of the soldiers who have these devices, so you are at best you are temporarily fooling one guy in the group you are attacking. I imagine the primary use of this is that, if bullets start flying and you take cover, you will be able to figure out where to return fire (or send backup, etc.) without needing to pop your head out first. It's not going to be that there is a loud noise and then suddenly everyone is scrambling to check their sensors on where to point their guns while the enemy parades in from the other direction.

Re:fireworks (5, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534916)

I imagine the primary use of this is that, if bullets start flying and you take cover, you will be able to figure out where to return fire (or send backup, etc.) without needing to pop your head out first.

That's more or less right. If the bullets are flying in large quantities it's generally not hard to figure out where they're coming from, but if you've got one or two snipers taking potshots at your platoon, it can be quite difficult to find them. In those cases, the traditional method for locating the shooter involves the section/squad commander yelling "charlie team, take a bound!". This seems much safer.

Re:fireworks (0)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534520)

Either you're being facetious or you're missing the point. If an enemy can easily fool these systems they can make it harder for soldiers to determine their position or they could possibly use the fireworks as a diversion to get soldiers to take cover in a position that leaves those soldiers vulnerable to actual enemy fire.

Re:fireworks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534656)

I think the point is irrelevant. The enemy can use fireworks now for the same purpose - yet you don't see it being done.

Re:fireworks (0)

MichaelKristopeit418 (2018864) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534768)

the point is only irrelevant to the anonymous coward that refuses to comprehend it's relevance.

the point isn't that "the enemy" can distract "an american soldier"... it's that "american soldiers" will now uniformly react to the distractions using external sensors. such uniformity can much more powerfully be exploited.

you're an idiot.

Re:fireworks (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534684)

Because soldiers are so stupid as to not consider that there might be enemies in more than one location?

You already get a sense of the direction of a sound from your ears, but not wonderfully precise. Having more precise information would be useful, the soldiers aren't going to be dumb enough to expose themselves in order to hide from that one sound (well some might I guess, but they won't be soldiers for very much longer either way).

The enemy can easily arrange for an actual gunshot to be fired in some location anyway

Re:fireworks (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534726)

They tend to use very large fireworks (aka IED's) for that purpose and they tend to be rather more effective at killing said soldiers than actually engaging them in a gunfight since our soldiers are better trained than the insurgents.

Re:fireworks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534776)

If an enemy can easily fool these systems they can make it harder for soldiers to determine their position or they could possibly use the fireworks as a diversion to get soldiers to take cover in a position that leaves those soldiers vulnerable to actual enemy fire.

This, of course, contrasts with the current technique of using distractions (such as fireworks or even just a thrown object) "as a as a diversion to get soldiers to take cover in a position that leaves those soldiers vulnerable to actual enemy fire."

Re:fireworks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534556)

Maybe not, but a flamethrower would.... of course, when you're being napalmed, you generally have a good idea where it's coming from.

Re:fireworks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534636)

Would they foil this? They're loud. But don't move at the speed of sound.

Nope. The system (if it works anything like similar system researched in academia) listens to both the sound from the gunpowder explosion and the shockwave(s) that the bullet creates as it flies through the air in and out of supersonic speeds.

These sorts of systems can usually detect not only where the shooter is, but also what weapon he is using. Each model of gun and ammo has a different "fingerprint".

Re:fireworks (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534790)

Would they foil this? They're loud. But don't move at the speed of sound.

From TFA, "The sensors are each about the size of a deck of cards and can detect the supersonic sound waves generated by enemy gunfire."

So what happens if they use sub-sonic rounds? They are use by the military, typically special forces, as they are rather quite. I'm sure you can find plenty of info on the net about how to make them at home even.

Re:fireworks (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534830)

Considering that the detectors are working using the sounds generated by the bullet exceeding the speed of sound and not by tracking the sound of the bullet being fired, it is doubtful that fireworks would in any way interfere with these detectors.

"supersonic sound waves" (4, Insightful)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534094)

if it is really detecting supersonic sound waves, it needs to be re-calibrated methinks...

Re:"supersonic sound waves" (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534276)

if it is really detecting supersonic sound waves, it needs to be re-calibrated methinks...

Why? Are you not familiar with the concept of a shock wave?

Re:"supersonic sound waves" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534316)

Whoosh!

(which is sonic)

((if it were supersonic, it wouldn't be sound))

Re:"supersonic sound waves" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534330)

If he/she meant "shock wave," submitter should have said "shock wave." A shockwave is in no way supersonic.

(Also, it's an ibtimes link again from RedEaredSlider. Could the editors maybe stop allowing their service to be hijacked by this irritating marketing campaign?)

Re:"supersonic sound waves" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534976)

Nah, what you're seeing here is simply the concept of a shock wave front as filtered through physics (non-)understanding of a journalist.

"Supersonic" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534114)

I'm interested in these devices that "can detect the supersonic sound waves generated by enemy gunfire."

Supersonic sound waves? As in, sound that travels faster than sound?

Odd.~

I believe they mean sonic booms (0)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534210)

from supersonic rounds like rifle fire, unlike subsonic rounds such as 9mm pistol fire.

Re:I believe they mean sonic booms (1, Informative)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534286)

If that's the case, it could be foiled by something like a VSS Vintorez, which fires a 9x39mm subsonic round. The round was originally designed to remain subsonic to assist in suppression, but this could make the caliber more advantageous than it already was.

I wonder if these types of Soviet weapons are available in Iraq in quantity? Surely they are in Afghanistan, though ammunition in the oddball caliber might be hard to come by.

Re:I believe they mean sonic booms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534320)

Ha ha ha. The terrorists have learned all they need to do to defeat the US army is use subsonic .22 ammunition. Well, the US army if it were soldiered by a number of not very cautious squirrels.

Yeah. Think I'll post this Anonymously. I don't want any "You hate our troops so we'll gay picket your funeral Fox luse rightwing nutjob" stuff.

Re:I believe they mean sonic booms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534468)

No, but seriously, why do you hate Baby Jesus' America? He died for your sins, and rich white people. Show some respect.

Re:"Supersonic" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534252)

Yo dawg, I heard you like sound, so I put sounds on your sounds.

Re:"Supersonic" (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534300)

I'm interested in these devices that "can detect the supersonic sound waves generated by enemy gunfire."

Supersonic sound waves? As in, sound that travels faster than sound?

Odd.~

Yes, it is called a shock wave.

Re:"Supersonic" (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534484)

No, a shock wave is the result of an object traveling faster than sound. Sound itself cannot travel faster than sound nor produce a shock wave.

Re:"Supersonic" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534690)

No, Shockwave [youtube.com] is the most awesome Transformer.

Genius in Marketing. (3, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534156)

"...The system, called Individual Gunshot Detector...

Really? All kinds of kick-ass program names and acronyms in the Military's arsenal of weapon nomenclature, and the best you could do was..."Individual Gunshot Detector"? Sheesh.

I guess there is one benefit to that generic name...I'll reserve the right to slap the shit out of anyone that asks the question "what does it do?"

Re:Genius in Marketing. (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534374)

4-directional Sonic Input Gunshot Heading Triangulator

4SIGHT

It's a sad day when the military can't come up with a good backronym.

Re:Genius in Marketing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534476)

Sonic Input Gunshot Heading quadangulator

4SIGHT

SIGHQ

TFTFY

Re:Genius in Marketing. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534592)

Hey if you guys like that name you can have it in exchange for a tour of Area 51,* I promise I won't tell! :D

*OK, I know that's not gonna happen...I'll settle for Pine Gap.

Re:Genius in Marketing. (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534402)

.I'll reserve the right to slap the shit out of anyone that asks the question "what does it do?"

Be careful. The kind of idiot that needs a gadget to tell him he's been shot might very well take you up on that.

not for gun shot wounds (1)

dlt074 (548126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534680)

this is not for detecting gun shot wounds. though, it is possible to be shot and not know it.

this is to help detect direction maybe distance. this is a very real issue. i've been in the situation where shots were fired and it was very difficult to figure out where they were coming from.

Re:Genius in Marketing. (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534756)

and the best you could do was..."Individual Gunshot Detector"

And what's even weirder is that the acronym that TFA attaches to that is IDG.

LOL, IDK, shouldn't it be IGD?

If it works, great (3, Insightful)

sarbonn (1796548) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534162)

If this saves any lives, then I'm all for it. I just hope it's not another makeshift technology that some company designed to make money but doesn't actually do anything useful but make rich people richer at the expense of American soldiers.

Re:If it works, great (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534346)

I actually saw this initially as a larger bit of technology on Discovery a couple of years ago. It could triangulate and range gun-shots pretty damned well.

I suspect this is the same thing but evolved a bit and scaled down to be portable.

Given what it purports to do, I suspect it's pretty easy to verify ... Shoot various guns at various ranges, and see if several people spread out over a distance can all point to the source. I should think that would be something the army could set up in an extremely short period of time.

Re:If it works, great (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534732)

Bonus points if you can use triangulation from multiple people to feed back to Predator/Global Hawk drones that can be directed autonomously to the predicted location of the sniper/gunmen is. You'll still want an Air Force office confirming before firing, but you can automate the fark out of this.

Re:If it works, great (2)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534568)

If this saves any lives, then I'm all for it.

It's certain this won't save the lives of any Afghans or Iraqis, whether the bullets are coming from a helicopter a mile away or a soldier that just kicked in his front door.

Re:If it works, great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534824)

Good.

Not Much Help Against the First Shot (2)

men0s (1413347) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534166)

If a sniper has a clear shot and takes a person out, well, that target will be dead before the sound waves reach the device. But at least the rest of the squad would know where the shot came from and respond accordingly.

Re:Not Much Help Against the First Shot (4, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534216)

Which is the point, right now without gunshot senors the unit is pinned down trying to determine the location of the sniper.

They've been using them in police and military applications for over ten years.

And yea, fireworks don't spoof them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not Much Help Against the First Shot (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534344)

I've maintained for a long time that these are not the best idea.

If I wanted to commit a robbery on the West end of town, I'd have a bunch of guys go through the East side and dump a few magazines, then drive off. The police would be dispatched there and busy trying to figure out what happened while the real crime was happening on the other end of town.

Re:Not Much Help Against the First Shot (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534474)

Thats why most police departments have more than one police station and more than one cop car.

Even during the North LA bank robbery, not every cop in the LAPD was dispatched there.

For your example - guys on the East Side fire off a bunch of rounds, car(s) are dispatched for shots fired calls, they don't see bloody corpses in the streets, they call it back in as responded too and go on to the next call.

West End of town, alarms go off and the police over there still respond.

Re:Not Much Help Against the First Shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534310)

you never hear the one that gets you...

Re:Not Much Help Against the First Shot (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534598)

Works better for an ambush from indigenous forces that don't quite grasp the concept of ironsights.

just wondering (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534170)

What about subsonic rounds? subsonic rounds + silencer = near invisible sniper.

Re:just wondering (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534298)

Subsonic rounds have lower penetration and range. Suppressors decrease this further. So the sniper has to get in closer, at which point s/he runs the risk of being spotted while en route. If I were the sniper, I'd rather go with "loud and clear, huh?", but usable from far, far away.

Re:just wondering (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534370)

With very limited range, and little to no ability to penetrate modern body armor.

And there are radar systems in place on Strykers and emplaced that do the same thing, without relying on the sonic crack.

Re:just wondering (1)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534388)

The problem with subsonic ammunition is that is is low powered and has ballistic characteristics that are very different from normal ammunition; as well there is usually not sufficient power to cycle a semi automatic gun. With silencers...well they need to be cleaned about every 10 shots to maintain effectiveness, let us also not forget that most combatants will not be worried about noise!

I always thought "ouch!" (1, Funny)

unassimilatible (225662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534174)

was a personal gunshot detector.

Re:I always thought "ouch!" (2)

DikSeaCup (767041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534254)

Do a little reading - you might be surprised at how often people get shot and don't realize it right away.

Re:I always thought "ouch!" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534396)

was a personal gunshot detector.

Yeah, that's the first one, but the other 12,999 are the ones that kill you!

Look out, J.C.! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534178)

A gunshot!

UK has something similar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534180)

A similar system, but one which mounts to a rifle sight (http://www.ultra-gunfirelocator.com/), is currently in Afghanistan with the UK forces.

My (late) cousin Bob was a detector (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534184)

My (late) cousin Bob was a gunshot detector... he successfully detected one once. then he died.

What type of battery? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534372)

I believe someone somewhere is realllll happy with market demand to come with this :)

Yet more burden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534382)

Another gadget sponsored and mandated by someone who doesn't have to tramp wearing all the kit that has already been issued...

"Light Infantry" is so-called for a reason.

What about sub-sonic rounds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534384)

What about sub-sonic rounds?

Yes they are loud, but they don't break the sound barrier, so they would be below the threshold to set off the the detector.

Sub-sonic 5.56x45mm ammo ftw.

Racket... (0)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534442)

Someone is making a serious amount of money off war...

Re:Racket... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35534664)

You realize profit is only the part you keep after the expense? If I sell you a 13000 gadgets for 100 bucks each that cost 1 million in design and construction, I'm not actually making that much money.

Re:Racket... (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534928)

Yeah, war is definitely making people rich. But you should check out the real problem which is all the money being made off of hunger. Fucking farmers. Clearly they're to blame for China's population problems.

new slang (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534628)

New term for a direct headshot from the direction the soldier is facing: "he got up-arrowed."

Its called a SWATS detector. (5, Interesting)

netrangerrr (455862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534630)

Its called the Soldier Wearable Acoustic Targeting System (SWATS) - and as a former Army Ranger (and a current QinetiQ employee) - I can tell you its a very cool and useful item. Bullets can whiz by you without you knowing where they came from. This little device at least gives you an estimate based on the sonic shockwave and gives you a heads up as to where a shooter might be. Not super high-tech, but super-useful if you're being shot at.

Re:Its called a SWATS detector. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534774)

At the very least, I should think knowing what you might be able to take cover behind would come in handy.

At, least until you can decide how to respond more decisively.

(Of, course, like most Slashdotters, I'll just stop at the taking cover phase and leave the actual soldiering to people like you ... I think it's safe to say most people reading here would not be very useful in a firefight, no matter how many video games they've played. ;-)

That was fast (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534642)

The last I heard of these things, they were big, vehicle-mounted jobs that were next to useless in anything but flat, empty terrain.

Of course, it remains to be seen if this iteration is of any use either, or if minor quibbles like echoes from buildings and gully walls are still rendering them expensive porkbarrel fodder.

Re:That was fast (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534944)

Boomerang is the vehicle mounted system and it works very well in urban environments according to both army testing and in field after action reports, the first and second generation units were not perfect but were effective with the third generation being the widely deployed version. They're also fairly inexpensive, the fixed price contact (not cost plus) was under $9,100 per unit. I would guess that this system will be less effective due to the fact that the microphones won't be nearly as good and the fact that they will probably have less processing power than the vehicle mounted version due to power requirements.

Do these things network? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534724)

From an individual device, you can only get a rough direction. But with timestamped events from multiple locations, you can get the actual location of the target. That's much more useful. You can transmit the target coordinates to artillery.

A gun-location app for a smartphone is quite possible. There's a microphone, a GPS, compute power, and comm.

This is not new tech... (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534870)

No news here - this technology has been available since the Phonecians invented the bow and arrow. The low-tech solution works like this: 1. Ow. 2. Where am I bleeding? 3. The shooter is most likely in the direction the wound is facing.

FPS... (1)

WoodburyMan (1288090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35534910)

This just in: Every troll whining about radar systems in FPS's aren't real and ruin the game play all shut up at one. Everyone was happy and the world prospered.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...