Better Sniper Detection

alanjstr writes: "Scientific American has a feature on detecting the location of a sniper based on sound and GPS. 'From [the] data, the model estimates the trajectory, caliber and speed of the bullet, the distance it traveled and the elevation of the sniper.'"

Comments

Preventive Measures

[Anonymous Coward]

This is more for preventive measures. A good sniper can pick off troops from over 500 yards away. At that distance, you cannot see individuals, much less shoot at them. However, if the system works, then the soldiers' computers will be able to pinpoint the sniper because of GPS.

Once, the location of the sniper has been determined, it's just a quick call to arty (artillery) or the local air base to bring a large amount of ordinance on the sniper location. This should discourage snipers from continually sniping, especially since their peers aren't coming back from missions.

Re:Preventive Measures

[WillAdams]

But the .50 is only for use against equipment (so use it against stuff like canteens and web gear :/

Also, the .50 doesn't have a terribly flat trajectory---when Walther was building the WA-2000, they actually considered creating new ammunition for it, to get the flattest possible trajectory, but decided that the .300 Winchester Magnum was good enough that wasn't necessary.

1,000+ yards effective range...

William

--
Lettering Art in Modern Use

Re:Preventive Measures

[MegaGremlin]

I realize you said _over_ 500 yards, but just to make your point even stronger:

A good Marine, shooting with the iron sights on an M-16 should be able to pick off individuals at 500 yards.

As a matter of fact we have to demonstrate that ability yearly to sustain our rifle qualification -- and you can certainly see individuals at 500 yards.

A sniper, with a scope and a much more powerful rifle, should be able to do the same at much greater than 800 yards - especially if he (no female snipers YET) is using the .50 caliber Barret sniper rifle.

Re:Beside the point.

[K-Man]

Optical and radar-based systems, which this one is not, pick up the bullet before it gets 50 feet out of the barrel (or the muzzle flash, using an infrared CCD camera). Since the speed of a bullet is about 2500 feet/sec., the target may have more than a second of warning to duck out of the way, depending on the range.

Acoustic systems are obviously handicapped by the lower speed of sound ( 1000 ft/sec), but it may be possible to pick up the sound sooner if a sensor is closer to the shooter than the target is. Presumably that's the basis of this system.

Re:Beside the point.

[K-Man]

The question is whether they can hit the round in the air. That would be something. I don't know much about military tech, but it seems like an artillery-interception system would be comparatively easy, given the systems that are being developed for missile interception. A ground-based laser would certainly be easier to build and deploy than a flying one.

Re:Beside the point.

[alanjstr]

That assumes you've got your radar/camera pointed in the right direction.

Re:Beside the point.

[david duncan scott]

Well, that's if your sniper is in Day of the Jackal. If he's in Bosnia, for instance, he's picking off ordinary grunts and he's firing more than once. Don't you remember the snipers who used to fire into the streets of Sarajevo, just making life hell for regular people?

Better?

[DNS-and-BIND]

The BBN detector can purportedly track snipers at greater distances than other prototype systems. It also uses inexpensive microphones and simpler computers than other sniper detectors.

All the more reason why this prototype system will never be chosen for mass production. Advanced (read "complicated, expensive") technology is almost always chosen over simpler, inexpensive designs in military contracting.

Here's a picture of the device (requires some strange plugin) and Here's the description of the device in question.