×

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!

Robo-Gunsight System Makes Sniper's Life Easier

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the other-people's-not-so-much dept.

The Military 265

An anonymous reader writes "Military and police marksmen could see their rifle sights catch up with the 21st century with a fiber-optic laser-based sensor system that automatically corrects for even tiny barrel disruptions. Factors such as heat generated by previously fired shots, to a simple bump against the ground can affect the trueness a rifle barrel. The new system precisely measures the deflection of the barrel relative to the sight and then electronically makes the necessary corrections. With modern high-caliber rifles boasting ranges of up to two miles, even very small barrel disruptions can cause a shooter to miss by a wide margin."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

265 comments

Laser guidance? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983324)

I wonder how long it will be until small bullets could be made to be guided by laser.

Re:Laser guidance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983344)

The laser would have to be infra-red for it to be sniper-worthy.

Re:Laser guidance? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983352)

Doesn't that mainly depend on those shark researchers?

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole426 (2092418) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983408)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. ---

Re:A lunch (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983704)

Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles.

Re:A lunch (0)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983820)

50% urine

There I fixed that for you. If you are going to troll at least spell your posts correctly.

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole429 (2092432) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983432)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. --------

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole433 (2092452) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983452)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. -3-

Re:Laser guidance? (3, Interesting)

bejiitas_wrath (825021) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983360)

http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/self-guided-sniper-bullets-wanted-by-us-dod/ [darkgovernment.com]

This is an example of self guided bullets. The technology might not be around yet but the promise is there. Apparently there is a US Patent on the tech: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5788178.html [freepatentsonline.com]. Interesting.

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole427 (2092422) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983416)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. ----

Re:Laser guidance? (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983366)

That would imply guidance wings, which makes me think of a gyrojet-style weapon. But with enough miniaturization, maybe you could make a bullet that assymetrically shed parts of an outer layer by command from a directional antenna on the barrel or something?

Re:Laser guidance? (2)

John Saffran (1763678) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983404)

External guidance would invite jamming, but the idea of fins is within the realm of the realistic since Sabot rounds on tanks already work in a similar way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_discarding_sabot [wikipedia.org]

Smaller scale and if you can miniaturise laser guidance to the same level then you'd have self-guiding bullets.

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole435 (2092458) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983460)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. -5-

Re:Laser guidance? (2)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983844)

abot rounds on tanks already work in a similar way:

check our the steyr AMR [world.guns.ru], it has been done before in rifle form. semi-auto too.

Re:Laser guidance? (3, Insightful)

WegianWarrior (649800) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983414)

That would imply guidance wings, which makes me think of a gyrojet-style weapon. But with enough miniaturization, maybe you could make a bullet that assymetrically shed parts of an outer layer by command from a directional antenna on the barrel or something?

A simpler option would be a bullet with a universal joint in the middle - by deflecting the rear end up-down and left-right enough force would be generated to alter the trajectory. At the speed and roll rate a rifle bullet travels wings would mostly just create drag...

Even so, I don't really see guided bullets become a reality for calibres less than 12.7mm - not only is smaller calibres less lethal on the rages where guided bullets makes sense, but you'll also run into the problem of the cost/benefit ratio.

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole434 (2092454) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983456)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. -4-

Re:Laser guidance? (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983464)

That would imply guidance wings, which makes me think of a gyrojet-style weapon.

One design for such a bullet I saw once had a pivoting tip that would be used to alter the airflow around the bullet, allowing it some amount of in-flight guidance. This might preclude spin stabilization though, not sure.

Re:Laser guidance? (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983878)

Nope! Actually the spin is necessary to stabilize it; without the spin, you need fins or wings to prevent tumbling. With the spin and with the mid-shank joint, all it means is that things get complicated.. if you want the bullet to deflect downward, you bend the nose downward -- but "downward" is spinning at a pretty high rate of speed, so the thing's gotta keep track of which direction is up and down and basically rotate at an equal rate in the opposite direction to keep the nose deflection in a uniform direction.

It's pretty crazy stuff. The processors keeping things working have to be very very tiny, and run on very little power, and also hardy enough to survive being shot from a gun (0 to ~1000m/s in.. very little time or distance. Big big forces!)

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole424 (2092402) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983398)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice.

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole428 (2092424) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983422)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. -----

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole431 (2092444) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983448)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. -2-

Re:Laser guidance? (4, Informative)

MoralHazard (447833) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983550)

small bullets could be made to be guided by laser

This is ambiguous, it could mean either of two completely different weapons systems:

First, we can consider an auto-aiming system with conventional "dumb", non-steered bullets. TFA discusses a tentative step in this direction, but it's easy to imagine a fully automated kind of system with a point-n-click interface. The rifle would be mounted on a computer-controlled, precision servo motor mount, with a a telescoped camera sighted along the barrel instead of a normal eyepiece. On a video monitor, the computer presents a crosshairs superimposed over a live camera image. The computer can incorporate various sources of ballistic data to correct the sight picture: sensors measuring (e.g.) barrel droop due to heat; a laser or microwave rangefinder for calculating elevation adjustments (b/c bullets drops as they travel); a wind gauge for calculating windage adjustments. If the computer performs real-time image analysis, it could also "mask" targets out from the background and analyze their motion, which would allow the operator's mouse aim to be pretty vague--kind of like a FPS game with an auto-aim cheat enabled.
        With quality mechanics, sensors, and code, this kind of weapon could allow a novice to out-shoot a good trained military shooter, as long as the target is stationary. Based on existing, real-life systems that I've seen and worked with, I think this kind of weapon could be built, today, for less than $5,000 using slightly modified off-the-shelf equipment and software. Would it beat a trained, experienced military shooter? Maybe not, but I don't see any reason why the implementation couldn't be refined to that point--there's no theoretical reason why the pure man-plus-gun system has to be better.

The second possibility, here, is to introduce "smart" steerable bullets into the mix. Like a guided air-to-air missile, each bullet would be able to adjust its course in midair in order to track a target that is moving, or simply to correct for the normal vagaries ballistics. This kind of system's one clear superiority over dumb bullets is that it can account for variables that crop up *after* the bullet leaves the barrel. For instance, a particularly small, fast, and continuously, erratically moving target (say, a hummingbird at 1 km) can easily foil the best shooter, human or computer. The hummingbird can trivially move out of a bullet's path during the flight interval, and the position changes are too chaotic for meaningful predictions (unlike, say, a man walking along a stretch of road). If each bullet carries its own target-tracking sensor (like an air-to-air missile) or obeys remote commands from the gun's targeting system (like a TOW missile), then the possibility of hitting that hummingbird grows larger.
        The mechanical implementation of steerable bullets is a bitch, though. The fundamental problem of non-powered, controlled flight is that course corrections increase drag and diminish your velocity. The more drastic of course changes you want, the more you hurt your aerodynamics, which proportionally hurts your kinetic energy, range, and damage potential. There may be a practical sweet spot, trading just a little power for just enough steering. Or, you might be forced to trade your unpowered bullets for powered rocket-like projectiles. Either way, you're talking about a hell of a lot of tough engineering R&D, like designing rocket engines or jet bodies, where you need an immense amount of experimental data and trial-and-error. To me, this sounds like big defense-contractor stuff--who else can afford time on a supersonic wind tunnel?
        And then there's the problem of cramming a steering mechanism and whatever targeting control equipment you need into the space of a bullet. Electronics and mechanical designs may be hard or easy, but a sure way to make them maddeningly frustrating is to mandate an especially tiny physical package. Oh, and your mass distribution will be a problem--bullets have to be absolutely perfectly radially symmetric, mass-wise, and their front-to-back profile is restricted, too. Plus you need a power source to run all this crap. Oh, and you're adding rocket motors to make up for lost velocity due to steering drag? Good luck with that.

My conclusion: In theory, steerable bullets would be a really neat idea, but I wouldn't advice holding your breath about seeing a working version, anytime soon. It's just such a huge engineering bitch, and for what gain? How often do we engage super-fast, super-erratic targets like hummingbirds, really? I think mostly our targets are going to have movement limitations that are somewhat predictable. On the other hand, the low-hanging fruit like auto-aiming and ballistic correction sensors is already available, at least in parts, and could be developed into a coherent, low-cost prototype in a matter of months. In short, why bother inventing a pen that can write upside down or in zero G, when you could just use a pencil, instead?

Re:Laser guidance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983552)

As long as there's no shortage of soldiers capable of being and willing to be snipers there's no need for that. And I don't think there is any scarcity on this front. A good sniper can shot target with a good accuracy if he's on right age and have average skills.

Re:Laser guidance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983564)

I wonder if a laser/radio waves/etc could be used to measure atmospheric conditions to the target and then make the necessary corrections. Not guided bu

Pointless... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983376)

If it can't correct for windage, etc. then what's the point? You still need a spotter.

And two miles away you're still probably going to miss.

Re:Pointless... (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983466)

It appears to be an adaptation of technology that has existed for many years for Tank barrels. It's no panacea but will help in reducing some of the many variables.

Re:Pointless... (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983516)

Unless your target is the side of a building. I'm betting that in 10000 shots from a big cannon type rifle (.50 cal or bigger?) the likelihood of a prone shooter hitting the head of a human like that of a fearless leader or not is going to be about none. I'm not worried about this being important for distance shooting like 2 miles. But .6 miles, it matters.

Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (1)

phase_9 (909592) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983378)

In all seriousness; how long until the military just deploys (via parachute drop, or soldier) robots into decent vantage points and then just get them to identify targets and have a remote operator push the button... scary stuff.

Re:Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (4, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983388)

Or just mount hellfire missiles on a long-range UAV, for added range and field of vision. Wait...

Re:Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (1)

sincewhen (640526) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983504)

Like a sentry bot in Portal?

Re:Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983546)

Hey! Put me down!
Owowowowowowowow!
I don't blame you.

I'm not sure they'd be effective

Re:Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (1)

Dails (1798748) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984094)

And they fire the whole bullet! That's 64% more bullet per bullet!

Re:Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (1)

woolpert (1442969) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983656)

In all seriousness; how long until the military just deploys (via parachute drop, or soldier) robots into decent vantage points and then just get them to identify targets and have a remote operator push the button... scary stuff.

The value of a sniper team is not just in their targeted lethality, but also in their scouting, observation abilities, and ability to move. A robosniper limited to a fixed position is just as much a sitting duck as a static artillery tube.

A robot which finds its own cover and provides a remote control gun barrel might be within the limits of modern (or foreseeable) technology, but one which is capable of moving stealthily from spot to spot? One which can climb stairs and over rubble in a bombed out building in the afternoon and craw through a drainage ditch that night? One which is able to read the wind and range passively without giving away their position through the radiation of active sensors? No, I don't think such a robot will be seen in my lifetime, likely not my (unborn) children's.

Re:Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983954)

I suspect that reasonably long endurance and quiet movement across irregular terrain will remain tricky for quite some time; but I'd be more optimistic about passive sensing.

Machine vision, while not entirely mature, is steadily improving, and CCD/lens combos that can collect more than enough photons at light levels where you can't see your hand in front of your face(and can do so at wavelengths well further into IR than a human can, if desired) are already available, just expensive.

A full replacement for humans on the ground seems quite unlikely; but some combination of substantial machine augmentation of those humans and the introduction of drone aircraft capable of using something a bit more precise than high explosive missiles seems quite likely in the relatively near future.

Re:Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (1)

woolpert (1442969) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984050)

I hear what you're saying regarding vision, and while that wasn't the limitation I was thinking about upon further thought perhaps you are right.

I was thinking about the (currently) uniquely human ability to judge range and wind through a combination of complex and subtly visual clues, rules-of-thumb, intuition and experience (the way tall prairie grass responds to a 10mph wind in late dry summer is different than how it responds the day after a rain, etc). There is no reason, though, that a sufficiently complex expert-system paired even with today's camera technology probably couldn't do the same.

Re:Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984074)

But it can also be expendable. If you lose a sniper you've lost many years of training and have to deal with political fallout back home - the people do not like it when their brave soldiers die. If you lose a robo-sniper, you just send out a new one. They'll be expensive, like everything military, but still not as expensive as training a human sniper. And they can't be held hostage. You could airdrop them in, or mount them on top of armored vehicles. Fit a good enough gyro and fast enough servos and it could compensate for vehicle movement, to an extent. Could even mount them on drone helicopters. All you need is a good enough communications link back to a human operator who can tell it who to kill. Even good for riot control if you load up rubber bullets - it could be accurate enough at shorter ranges to pick out those stiring trouble or carrying weapons without hitting those just caught up in the crush.

A lunch (-1, Offtopic)

asshole423 (2092380) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983382)

A 20 gram of shit, just pulled out of asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice.

Overpowered? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983402)

Yeah, but how long until everyone complains about it being overpowered and they nerf it? With perks like Robo-Gunsight, no wonder there are so many campers.

Re:Overpowered? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983716)

You laugh, but this technology will help save lives.

Re:Overpowered? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983776)

It will help save the lives of our brave soldiers as they stand knee deep in the blood of the infidels.

Re:Overpowered? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983974)

I'm pretty sure you have the terminology wrong: We are the infidels. They are either the terrorists(establishment clause compliant term) or the heathens(for the "American is a Christian Nation" enthusiasts).

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole425 (2092406) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983406)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. --

Ob (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983430)

In Soviet Russia, rifle aims you!!!!!

Walk away (2, Interesting)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983434)

Being some kind of military person with more experience than the entire user database of dash slot. Learn one lesson..... always walk away from conflict and violence.

If you see muzzle flashes, then the rules of engagement has been broken. Commando's then unleash such fire power we do not care if your wife, children or pet gets hurt as collateral damage.

YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU STARTED THE FIGHT!

Lesson of life!

Re:Walk away (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983544)

I hope you die painfully.

Re:Walk away (-1, Offtopic)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983560)

If you see muzzle flashes, then the rules of engagement has been broken. Commando's then unleash such fire power we do not care if your wife, children or pet gets hurt as collateral damage.

YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU STARTED THE FIGHT!

Lets put this into some metaphorical perspective.
Mommy he threw the first punch during lunch time at school, so I burned down his house and killed his family.

Re:Walk away (0)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983614)

yea that is it actually. In WAR there is no such thing as a fair fight. If you think it is going to be a fair fight, then you double the number of resources at your disposal.

In WAR you want to be the one left alive. That is what matters. WAR is not some street fight, you don't shake hands and say good job afterwards. WAR is killing someone so they can't hurt you. Today's child is tomorrows adult with a grudge and a gun.

Re:Walk away (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35984066)

wake me up when there is a war...

P.S. In the United states of America, only congress has the power to declare war and we have not been at war since WWII.

Re:Walk away (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983620)

That is of course the guy who threw the first punch knew that type of retribution would occurre. It is not like the play ground situation where after he throws the first punch the other guy will either run away crying or punch back. If you are going to mess with a military any military they will respond to your attack with enough force to keep themselves safe. That means your wife could have a gun too, and your dog was trained to attack. If you don't know you are not going to risk it. War sucks the moral high ground doesn't work if you are dead.

Re:Walk away (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983790)

Cute username, but "some kind of military person"? In other words you're an office worker (FINANCE, JAG/Legal). Or you could give us a branch and MOS? Thanks. US Army, MOS 21B30 (was 12B30) Combat Engineer (landmine, explosives, etc)

A lunch (-1, Troll)

asshole430 (2092440) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983440)

A 20 gram of shit, freshly pulled out of an asshole, covered with cum and and glass of coctail: 50% urune and 50% tomato juice. 1

Re:A lunch (0)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983458)

Look, you've tested it. It works. You might want to save some of those bots/tor endpoint nodes from permaban for the actual spam attack. Or is this all you've got?

sacrificial sat, detroit security forces attack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983446)

quell public citizen response to hate mongering bible peddler from florida. in detroit? don't they love the bible? freedom to tout hatred, but not to complain about same? like the manufactured ''weather'? no good choices, so fire at will? so our rights to remain silent, & to hate each other are semi-intact?

like waving a copy of mein kampf at bar mitzvah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983498)

yet another hated fictional work, in that neighborhood? talk about media supported trouble making? freedom to raise hell? gives the security forces something to do.

marksman != sniper (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983474)

Marksmen/sharpshooters are simply those who can shoot straight, and even at a distance. A sniper is someone who knows how to take out a target and not be seen.

Re:marksman != sniper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983508)

Let the military circle-jerk begin!

Something wrong here (2, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983518)

Am I alone in feeling disturbed at the trend to separate the combatants by ever increasing distances? It is separating the human cause and effect so that the soldiers are increasingly disconnected from their actions. What motivation is there to peacefully settle the argument when you can just continue to blast the opposition? We see the same thing happening with Predator Drones that are controlled by soldiers on the other side of the planet. This can only result more people being needlessly hurt. Everyone, sooner or later, acquires the technology and another round starts.

I suppose that the rot really started when kings stopped leading their troops into battle; they appointed generals to do it; the generals later sat a few miles behind the lines and sent the private soldiers to meet the enemy; now these privates are increasingly separated from their opponents.

How can we ensure that those who have the power to stop wars become motivated to negotiated by personally feeling the consequences of their own intransigence?

Re:Something wrong here (0)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983554)

The problem is that this isn't "king vs. king", it's king(s) vs. oppressive warlord(s). Take the current situation in Libya, for example. It's not a matter of "disagreement", it's a matter of civilians being killed, tortured and raped to oppress revolts. It's not a matter of misunderstanding or unwillingness to get along, but power, only power.

Introducing misguided notions of civility (except for stuff like "we won't pour white phosporus over the enemy, shoot off his leg so he'll be a burden for his men and lower morale as he writhes in agony, or use gasses that causes the enemy to slowly drown in his own lung-slime") would probably be a huge mistake.

Re:Something wrong here (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983728)

I just wish the notions of civility would expand to a complete ban of arms exports. Wars are not universal constants even though many like to believe in such perpetuity.

Re:Something wrong here (2)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983950)

Atrocities and genocide can be committed just as well with tools as guns. Just look at the machete.

Go check out all the shit that's happening in Africa and tell me if you honestly think any, ANY of that, would be solved by people not having weapons -- or if it seems more likely that the same damn shit would be happening if all they had access to were sticks stones and bits of bones.
What part of Africa you say? Take your pick. Pointing randomly at Africa, you have a better chance of choosing a place that's burning than a place that's remotely safe.

Re:Something wrong here (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984110)

Sure, but banning arms exports would be a great beginning.

France for example sold weapons to Rwanda genociders while the atrocities were on-going, so banning exports would provide a clear argument against atrocities and their cheerleaders. Pretty much all who could sold weapons to Gaddafi. You are saying that Africa is the prime example of brutality when in fact the outsiders have historically done most of the killings (Belgium killed millions in forced-labor camps in Kongo for starters) and provided weapons and manipulated politics.

The only reasonable way to argue for arms exports is to argue for the industry's economic impact, but humanely that's not really wise.

Re:Something wrong here (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983574)

Am I alone in feeling disturbed at the trend to separate the combatants by ever increasing distances?

Oh, I don't know. 9/11 finally brought some kind of perspective to the wars the US have started the last fifty years. A number of countries have experienced US-backed wars, but this was the first time in a long time someone brought the action to US soil. The oceans have made that hard for a long time. Other countries are not that lucky.

You guys failed that test, though. Instead of reflecting, y'all went apeshit. You are now on the border of bankrupting yourselves.

Re:Something wrong here (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983642)

Yes this 1 million year long trend is quite disturbing. Except for hand to hand combat let's get a stone so if you get a blow to the head you win. Let's use a big heavy stick so you hit further away then you oponenent so he can't hit you with the rock.

Much of our civilization is from the fact if we break the rules there is retribution that we cannot fight back. Yes it is opression to an extent. But if you thought you had a fair fight more people will be willing to take their chance.

Re:Something wrong here (2)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983800)

The front line is not a place for negotiation. You see the bad guys, you shoot them or they shoot you. If your conscience acts up, you die. If you want to stop a war, you'll have start top down; grunts on the ground are merely following orders. If they stop following orders, they get prosecuted and shot.

Re:Something wrong here (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984008)

Honestly, I'd be more disturbed by the consequences of separation if it weren't for the (long, ugly) historical record of what people are, in sufficiently large numbers to make it practical, more than willing, even enthusiastic, to do face-to-face.

Mostly in your addled head (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35984136)

Without modern technology it takes many people to commit a massacre and they have to be fired up to do it.

On the other hand with modern technology one person can carry out a massacre all by themselves and they don't need to be fired up to do it. All they need is an order or a fleeting error of judgement.

Potentially game-changer? (2)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983540)

If a high-caliber sniper rifle with such improved self-correcting optics (which would practically render the barel trueness a non-issue) falls in the hands of the bad guys, high-ranking political figures will be at much higher risk. The only thing that will hinder the marksman will be wind.

Which, to be honest, is actually a rather big obstacle still. A bit too stochastic to completely eliminate uncertainty at long (over 1000m) distances.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983616)

Fire a stream of bullets. Each projectile has a laser diode in the rear end which is tracked by the guidance system on the gun. As the gun collects information on crosswinds, etc, it adjusts the trajectory of subsequent projectiles. Its just like firing tracers but more automated and on a smaller scale.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983710)

Fire a stream of bullets.

Something tells me the recoil from the first bullet would throw all the others way, way off. I don't think very high precision and firing bullets in rapid enough succession for that to work is possible.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983740)

Fire a stream of bullets.

Something tells me the recoil from the first bullet would throw all the others way, way off. I don't think very high precision and firing bullets in rapid enough succession for that to work is possible.

Presumably recoil is important because the impulse back from the projectile does not pass through the centre of mass of the gun and the centre of pressure of the gun mount.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

minorproblem (891991) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983882)

Couldn't you setup multiple computer fired weapons at the same time and have a few of them aimed near the target but at something harmless (maybe a few metres above the target) by tracking the trajectory of the first few bullets you could predict wind conditions for your kill shot?

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983714)

Fire a stream of bullets. Each projectile has a laser diode in the rear end which is tracked by the guidance system on the gun. As the gun collects information on crosswinds, etc, it adjusts the trajectory of subsequent projectiles. Its just like firing tracers but more automated and on a smaller scale.

I can think of at least 3 reasons why this is a dumb idea, without even the slightest effort.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983726)

Quoth "blind biker", #1066130:

I can think of at least 3 reasons why this is a dumb idea, without even the slightest effort.

I can think of 3 reasons why this is a dumb idea for you:

1. You're blind.
2. You ride a bike. (Snipers don't ride bikes. They drive Aston Martins.)
3. You're blind.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983746)

Fire a stream of bullets. Each projectile has a laser diode in the rear end which is tracked by the guidance system on the gun. As the gun collects information on crosswinds, etc, it adjusts the trajectory of subsequent projectiles. Its just like firing tracers but more automated and on a smaller scale.

I can think of at least 3 reasons why this is a dumb idea, without even the slightest effort.

What are they?

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983864)

1. Non-guided projectiles (not just bullets) shining a laser light back to a detecor at the gun/firing position will soon "miss" the detector.

Sniper rifles don't fire streams of bullets. That would make them inaccurate (thermal stresses in and around the barrel). There are some automatic rifles that can also act as snipers, but then they fire single shots.

A stream of bullets would mean stray shots which then means collateral damage (may not be of interest) and potentially giving advance warning to the target before it is hit.

Note that I am *not* arguing against using a sophisticated technology - I am arguing that it would not be suitable for sniping purposes.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983818)

Both the uncle and parent's non-specific rebuttals don't seem too definitive. Controlling recoil is just a matter of having the next round fired when the barrel is aligned to the correct projected location, down to the micrometre, something which a machine can be capable of; in the parent's case, I can only assume it's some vaguery about not wanting to trust a machine for the job because of imperfection X currently found in product Y.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984106)

No need. Just use a laser beam (IR or UV so it can't be seen) to measure the particles in the air.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983768)

How long before we can build a laser-guided bullet, which will compensate for the wind as it goes? You need a camera, processor and control surfaces small enough to be built into the bullet, and rugged enough to work after it's been fired. The guidance laser on the rifle is possible with today's technology.

Or a step beyond that: if the camera on the bullet has enough resolution, you could get it to do facial recognition on the target. Either from a stock photo (software isn't good enough to do this reliably yet), or from a picture downloaded to the bullet from a camera in the rifle, taken as it's fired, with the same lighting and camera angle as the bullet sees.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (2)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983906)

How long before we can build a laser-guided bullet, which will compensate for the wind as it goes?

We're closer than you'd think: I've seen a conference paper about the integration of a micro-power source into a ballistic bullet at PowerMEMS 2009 [transducer...dation.org] and fin-stabilized fletchettes are no big news, either. Put the two togetherr, plus a lot more sophisticated technology... and voilÃ, laser-guided sniper projectile. One such projectile would cost like an apartment in Dubai, but may be worth it.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983854)

There are plenty of great easy to use sniper rifles available today. They are expensive though. Getting them close to a target is hard. Laying motionless for days is hard. I don't see how this would be a game change for others. For the US, this greatly increase the capability of our sniper teams though.

Re:Potentially game-changer? (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984062)

Our enemies are not very skillful marksmen. A gun's only as accurate as the man shooting it. The sorts of people who are able to make shots count over long distances tend not to be the sorts of people who fall in with terrorism. They actually tend to be rather strange people compared to 'normal'; it takes a very steady hand, and a very calm mind, and a very *fast* mind.

I can't speak for sniping specifically, but I assume that shot it similar to the string of shots a competitive marksman takes -- which if you hook up an EEG, yeah, they're actually meditating more or less. So a sniper? Supreme minor muscular awareness and control, instinctualization of calculations regarding wind deflection (it's a lot more complicated than simply left/right, and by far the hardest part is simply judging the wind's direction at distances between you and your target), and, oh, yeah, when you're shooting a mile or more you start needing to account for Coriolis effects due to the Earth's spin, so you need to know the direction of your shot with regards to the Earth's axis of rotation and your latitude, and then there's changes in point of impact due to inflection or deflection of your shot.

It's a lot more difficult than "put target in crosshair, pull trigger". Even at ranges where it IS that simple, it's harder to actually get that target steady in the crosshair long enough, and to pull the trigger steady enough, to hit things.

The assassination of important figures from great distance.. that is, honestly, historically, almost an entirely uniquely american thing.

From the article......... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983602)

"The lifesaving results are lethal."

That'll be along the lines of destroying the village to save it, then?

"Yes Sir, we fully saved his life."

"How?"

"350 grain .50 cal bullet through the head, Sir."

"Well done soldier, that's one more life that's gonna STAY saved. Forever. God bless America."

Re:From the article......... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983646)

350 grain is awfully light .50 caliber long-range anti-personnel ordnance.

Re:From the article......... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983682)

He he. Very true, I should research my ammo a bit more before making clever remarks. IANAS.

How about a RAUFOSS in the chest instead?

Not the only factors (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983764)

The new system precisely measures the deflection of the barrel relative to the sight and then electronically makes the necessary corrections.

It would seem like there would be many other variables besides barrel deflection. Wind, humidity, minor differences in the powder load, slight imperfections in how the powder burns, microscopic differences in the bullets themselves.

I'm wondering how barrel imperfections compare to other factors?

505 kill sniper with iron sights (3, Interesting)

Clueless Moron (548336) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983784)

The famed Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä [wikipedia.org] (505 kills, over 700 counting his machine gun badassery) preferred plain old iron sights.

What's interesting there is that he preferred it because of the concealment factor. His typical kills were done at 400+ m which is pretty close by modern standards, but he got that close by not lugging around a huge bling-bling scope and having to poke his head up to use it.

Re:505 kill sniper with iron sights (4, Interesting)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984092)

Well, that's also because at the time, scopes weren't really that great.

Especially in Finland, which I have never been to but I imagine as a very cold, very damp country. WWII-era scopes would be prone to fogging in those conditions, and hell, most of them were low-power optics anyway, with not-very-large objective lenses.

That means light gathering was less than ideal, parallax was not all that great, magnification was minimal, and it would've been likely that after being covered with snow the scope would be fogged and unusable anyway. I don't blame him for not using a scope!

Re:505 kill sniper with iron sights (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35984118)

And optical sights reflect light. The remarkable Carlos Hathcock [wikipedia.org] used that to take out an NVA counter-sniper:

The sniper had already killed several Marines and was believed to have been sent specifically to kill Hathcock. When Hathcock saw a flash of light (light reflecting off the enemy sniper's scope) in the bushes, he fired at it, shooting through the scope and killing the sniper.

How usefull is this really? (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 2 years ago | (#35983896)

This is neat technology and all, but I have to wonder why they're worried about correcting for the barrel heating up. I thought it was pretty rare that a sniper would be taking more than one shot, and really don't think one would ever be were taking enough shots to heat the barrel to the point of distortion. I'm no metallurgist, and the longest shot I've taken is 350 yards with a smaller caliber (5.56mm, but it had 30 rounds through it right before I shot it and I hit my first and only shot), so maybe I'm mistaken.

The only sniper I know this would help that comes to mind was the guy in the clock tower in Texas, and I'm pretty sure that's not the guy they designed the sights for.

Gyrojet rockets spun. No wings. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35983988)

Gyrojet rounds (rockets actually) spun like crazy; that's where the round got its stability. I've shot them, I've seen a riccochet'ed (is that a word?) round lying on the sand spinning (took forever to spin down too). No wings, no how.

There are still ways to guide spinning rounds, but it ain't easy. But if you have guidance, you then don't need the spin.

Heart beat, sweat bead, pinned down, 5 mile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35984124)

One shot, one kill.

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...