Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Developing Super Scope
Iddo Genuth writes "Researchers at the Strategic Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are developing new high-resolution scopes that extend the range of viable image recognition and reduce atmospheric interference. Still in the early prototyping stage, DARPA hopes the new optical system (PPT presentation) will eventually result in a decrease of friendly fire incidents and collateral damage from military operations. 'Called the Super-Resolution Vision System (SRVS), this new system exploits atmospheric turbulence effects that magnify pieces of images behind heat haze. The formal name for this phenomenon is atmospheric turbulence-generated micro-lensing and it creates a brief, high resolution image behind the haze. The SRVS takes many such images and collates them to create a cohesive image of the entire larger area under observation using new advances in signal processing made possible by advances in computer processing power and increased storage capabilities.'"
Didn't Nintendo make that years ago?
~ Mooga
... is a long way off.
exactly one month ago
Lucky imaging has been used in astrophotography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging
i believe the main difficulty would be in the automation of the technique.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. - Mark Twain
I don't know much about the US infantry (and being /. I didn't RTFA), but where I serve only snipers and sharpshooters use scopes. Most friendly fire incidents are not the work of snipers, who take the time to accurately engage and ID their targets. This sounds to me that either the US infantry is reckless (snipers firing without positively IDing their targets), or that the term 'friendly fire' was used to gain support from those unfamiliar with military tactics.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
So basically it takes a lot of little snaps of objects in the distance that are effected by the "heat wave effect thing(like I said I just woke up and I haven't started the coffee yet)" and then pieces together what the object actually is?
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes? Sure it isn't mounted right down the barrel, but they all use some sort of optical/computer enhanced imaging for target acquisition. I don't know the statistics of where friendly fire is coming from, but a better target identifiying ability for fighting vehicles has got to be a good thing in that regard.
We are all just people.
but where I serve only snipers and sharpshooters use scopes.
Same in US.
This sounds to me that either the US infantry is reckless (snipers firing without positively IDing their targets)
Unlikely.
or that the term 'friendly fire' was used to gain support from those unfamiliar with military tactics.
More likely.
Even more likely: the reporter got it wrong.
Or it's to be used in assassination attempts from ultra-long range where the target is in a crowd of non-targets or friendlies. But that's just paranoid ranting. Isn't it?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?
Yes. Just about every modern attack platform has some form of optics involved in their target acquisition system. There are few areas of the military where a system like this, assuming it is truly capable, would not be leveraged. Possible uses range from snipers to UAV to attack helicopters.
The bits of magnified image are the only ones that are collected. Then the zoomed bits are stitched together, so you get a clear picture of what is very far away.
Though there are 'researchers' at DARPA, they're generally not the ones doing the research. Most likely this is DARPA opening the bidding process to find someone to develop this technology.
How about they test it by finding one of the Apollo Lunar Modules ? :)
In fact, I'd very much like to see NASA test upgraded Hubble this way too
3.243F6A8885A308D313
I'm too lazy to search for it, but either I'm having one hell of a deja-vu moment, or slashdot ran a story about this exact thing a few months ago...
Friendly fire isn't a myth, I suspect it goes somewhat unreported in the US compared to over here as it seems to be other countries' soldiers that are usually on the wrong end of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921807.stm
Here's to 60 years of precision bombing - yeeee haaaaw!
There is no music - home taping killed it.
only snipers and sharpshooters use scopes
This is true. The problem is with the idiot knowlessman writer who chose the word "scope". The more correct term would be "sight", as found on large armored vehicles, ATGM launchers, and aircraft. They're not likely to be able to pack the equipment necessary to use "advances in signal processing made possible by advances in computer processing power and increased storage capabilities" into anything a guy with a bolt action rifle will want clamped to his receiver.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?
Yes, but they're called "sights". This is the source of the confusion. THe writer is clueless and doesn't know that "scope" generally means a little thing clamped to a rifle. It's the same kind of ignorance found when they call magazines "clips".
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?
Optics used on weapons platforms are tradeoffs on power, size, and resolution. There is only so much room on fighter aircraft, and with modern anti-aircraft missiles, it means pilots often work at the limits of the equipment. Advances in electronics have led to advances in optics (Sniper pods, etc) and hopefully DARPA can achieve another breakthrough, but I wouldn't get my hopes up as many of DARPA's projects prove too costly or too tough to engineer at that particular point in time.
Impetuous! Homeric!
Overall, it's probably more useful for observation than for actually extending the shooter's range. The limiting factors as they stand now tend to be based around the immutable laws of exterior ballistics. Having an optic capable of resolving a target at 3000 yards is of no use if your platform, on its very best day, is only capable of semi-consistent hits at 1500 yards. The time delay isn't quite as terrible as some might think (unlike Halo, in real life it can take several seconds for your bullet to make it downrange to the target, so if the target is mobile you're probably screwed), but definitely not an advantage either.
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?
Yes. Just about every modern attack platform has some form of optics involved in their target acquisition system. There are few areas of the military where a system like this, assuming it is truly capable, would not be leveraged. Possible uses range from snipers to UAV to attack helicopters.
I think that this technology can be applied only on stationary scopes tough, since you must take an inordinate amount of screenshots of the same target for the technology to work its magic.
So, stationary scope looking at stationary target = good, moving scope looking at a moving target = bad. Not a bad tradeoff since a moving target is usually much simpler to find/id/kill.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
DARPA's projects prove too costly or too tough to engineer at that particular point in time.
You mean they usually are too cool to remain public and therefore are shut down and continued under a heavy top secret label.
or that the term 'friendly fire' was used to gain support from those unfamiliar with military tactics.
I heard a reporter tell a story about when he was in Afghanistan and was out getting stories he'd ride around with local guides in their vehicles. They apparently happened upon an active battlefield one day in a large basin when an Apache turned and started to bear down on their position. When it was about 2 miles out the Apache veered off and left his convoy alone. He later found out the gunner had recognized him from the lunch table he was at a few days prior, at the military base.
Apparently they have fabulously stabilized scopes on the bottom of those things. I've used excellent rife scopes and they're not even in the same century as something that could positively ID a human face at two miles, from a helicopter. That said, actual snipers these days reportedly use orbital laser measurements of atmospheric conditions to calculate their windage adjustments. I forget what the records are for successful shots, but it's rumored that those around the victims often never hear a report.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
In Lebanon we found a rocket launcher (US-made, but I am not familiar with them so I do not know which model) all ready for launch, with a huge binocular optical scope. I was a good kilometer from the shoreline and pointing the scope at the ships (however far away they stay from the coast) I could see the sailor's faces and beards clearly. I even think that I could make out blinks. This is with an _optical_ scope on a tripod. The electronic stuff must be scary indeed.
It's nice to know that the (presumably) American Apache pilot had IDed his target before firing. I wonder what the firing criteria are? Is he open for fire at the sight of a weapon? Was he looking for someone specific?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
This is with an _optical_ scope on a tripod.
Wow, and attached to a rocket launcher? That's gotta be a $2000+ scope. No wonder my taxes are so confiscatory.
It's nice to know that the (presumably) American
well, NATO anyway. Highly likely he was American, just based on numbers.
Apache pilot had IDed his target before firing. I wonder what the firing criteria are? Is he open for fire at the sight of a weapon? Was he looking for someone specific?
Oh, that was in the story too. He was cleared and instructed to fire on anything non-NATO in the battlefield. This gunner was a bit more conscientious than his orders. IIRC he called in his non-fire decision and was not given any challenge on his decision - they don't want any friendly fire, but they didn't want any enemy combatants leaving the area alive either.
I suppose it's not such an awful thing that the gunners can see the faces of the men they're about to kill. Dehumanizing death is all too common.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This is with an _optical_ scope on a tripod.
Wow, and attached to a rocket launcher? That's gotta be a $2000+ scope. No wonder my taxes are so confiscatory.
I would hazard a guess that it is an order of magnitude more expensive than that. Note that this setup could fire more than one rocket. I didn't see other rockets, but I am have since found out that there were either three or five rockets for that one launcher.
It's nice to know that the (presumably) American
well, NATO anyway. Highly likely he was American, just based on numbers.
Apache pilot had IDed his target before firing. I wonder what the firing criteria are? Is he open for fire at the sight of a weapon? Was he looking for someone specific?
Oh, that was in the story too. He was cleared and instructed to fire on anything non-NATO in the battlefield. This gunner was a bit more conscientious than his orders. IIRC he called in his non-fire decision and was not given any challenge on his decision - they don't want any friendly fire, but they didn't want any enemy combatants leaving the area alive either.
I suppose it's not such an awful thing that the gunners can see the faces of the men they're about to kill. Dehumanizing death is all too common.
Authorized to shoot at anything non-NATO? That's absurd! That's slaughter. If an order like that ever came out of my higher-ups, I am certain that my commander wouldn't even let it trickle down to us. We take every opportunity _not_ to kill the enemy, and especially not anything without ID.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Authorized to shoot at anything non-NATO? That's absurd! That's slaughter. If an order like that ever came out of my higher-ups, I am certain that my commander wouldn't even let it trickle down to us. We take every opportunity _not_ to kill the enemy, and especially not anything without ID.
I'm glad to hear that. What I heard was at least third-hand, so I give it that much veracity.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Perhaps they are trying to extend scope range for the time that they hope bullets can go just as far.
Also, with the article they have a sniper and his spotter as picture at the top; so I am guessing it is for enhanced sniping, but usually its not the image but the distance that is the problem to my knowledge. Either way an advance is an advance, were one step closer to... something.
~
NoName
Shoot Yourself In the Foot