Robo-Gunsight System Makes Sniper's Life Easier

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."

Comments

Laser guidance?

[MichaelSmith]

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

Re:Laser guidance?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Laser guidance?

[lennier1]

Doesn't that mainly depend on those shark researchers?

Re:Laser guidance?

[bejiitas_wrath]

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

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. Interesting.

Re:Laser guidance?

[Securityemo]

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?

[John Saffran]

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

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

Re:Laser guidance?

[WegianWarrior]

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.

Re:Laser guidance?

[bentcd]

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?

[MoralHazard]

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 di

Re:Laser guidance?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Laser guidance?

[peragrin]

Being able to bend bullets, and shoot around some corners isn't enough of a benefit?

Re:Laser guidance?

[walshy007]

abot rounds on tanks already work in a similar way:

check our the steyr AMR, it has been done before in rifle form. semi-auto too.

Re:Laser guidance?

[Kreigaffe]

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!)

Re:Laser guidance?

[Anonymous Coward]

> calibres less than 12.7mm

That's 0.5in. I don't mind the metric system, but let's call a spade a spade. No need to take the myriad of things with nice round imperial measurements and make them odd metric.

It's a half an inch, just like DIP pins are 0.1 inches separation, not 2.54mm.

Re:Laser guidance?

[currently_awake]

A better idea: put guidance fins on the bullet controlled by the rifle- you could correct the trajectory of the bullet in flight to account for wind/target moving/imperfections in the rifle. If they can make tiny motors (mems) they can certainly do this.

Re:Laser guidance?

[jbeaupre]

I remember the same thing. Something out of Georgia Tech. The tip was piezo controlled, making it very fast. IIRC, it was a 50 cal round intended as an antitank sniper round (a little bullet hitting in just the right spot might disable a tank turret or worse).

Spine stabilization would be possible. Piezos can react far faster than the bullet would be spinning. But the whole point is that spin isn't needed.

Re:Laser guidance?

[denzacar]

@50$ per bullet?
@500$ per bullet?
@5000$ per bullet?
@50000$ per bullet?
@500000$ per bullet?

And that's not even accounting for a specialized rifle that could cost a couple of 100k dollars to a couple million dollars a piece.

See what he meant with cost/benefit ratio?

Re:Laser guidance?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No, you haven't and no, you couldn't. First, a decent rifle without glass can cost upwards of $5k. Second, you're talking about way too much computing power on a rifle. Third and most import, accurate and consistent distance shooting requires lots of practice... it's not just a little math and yanking a trigger. Assuming you can't just fire 10,000 rounds at one target and adjust along the way, you can't buy your way into being a good marksman with an abundance of computing technology.

So in short, no... no FPS video game playing teenager is going to shoot anything like a practiced marksman, regardless of what technology you give him.

Hell, we already have computing devices for most of the stuff you discussed, and it doesn't make amateurs into decent shooters.

Re:Laser guidance?

[ShanghaiBill]

the idea of fins is within the realm of the realistic

Finned bullets already exist. They are called flechettes.

Re:Laser guidance?

[peragrin]

Like all things mass production lowers costs.

Right now the XM-25(variable distance grenade) costs $25,000 each, with ammo around $100 a round for the good stuff.

the US armed forces are working on consolidating tech. So the lessons learned from that, will combine with this, and a few other options creating smart scopes. Mass production means they won't be that expensive in another 10 years.

Re:Laser guidance?

[GooberToo]

That would imply guidance wings

It can all be done by spin variance, induced drag, and slight changes in cg. No need for fins.

Re:Laser guidance?

[phoenix321]

With the cost of education and training for each individual soldier and the pensions to be paid if something should happen to them, expensive ammunition is the least of financial worries to a modern army of professionals. Getting the mission done with all your men coming out unharmed is worth a lot, not only financially, but also strategically: you can influence and take part in battles you've never could before, because the risk is higher for a spectacular failure. Wounded soldiers always cause public inquiries on exactly why The Army of One needed to be there. When it's more likely that all the blue guys get home unharmed, you can take much more chances in ethically/morally/economically questionable settings. And that is worth not only the insane cost per bullet for some...

Re:Laser guidance?

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Except that calibers have never been measured with imperial measurements, as far as I know. While I'm no gun junkie, I've never heard a 9mm called a 0.35in, nor a 12.7mm called a 0.5in. While neatness is appreciated, accepted/common syntax comes first.

Re:Laser guidance?

[Inthewire]

...and in the world of firearms, imperial measurements are standard. Caliber implies fractions of an inch. There's no "9mm caliber." There's 9mm, which is .357 caliber. Which, irritating as it may be, is the same as .38 caliber. Case diameter, bullet diameter, marketing diameter all influence the designation.

Re:Laser guidance?

[hairyfeet]

How could they be allowed to patent THAT idea, hasn't like everyone seen Runaway? The whole movie was based around the bad guy having self guiding bullets!

Re:Laser guidance?

[guyminuslife]

Right! Lowering the risks of shooting people will indubitably increase the amount of situations in which we're willing to shoot people.

Re:Laser guidance?

[RPI Geek]

Hell, we already have computing devices for most of the stuff you discussed, and it doesn't make amateurs into decent shooters.

I think OP was thinking more along the lines of a benchmount rifle than augmenting a standard rifle. In that case, this idea is feasible (but the price is probably a bit low). Let's do a very rough breakdown:

M14 (.308) - $1800*
Laptop - $1000
Optics - $2000 (good optics are easily $1000, and making is adjustable to read mirage, etc might double the price).
Servos - $300?
Stock material - $500?
Various gears / connection hardware - $500?
Fabrication costs - $0 (if you DIY).
Programming - $0 (if you DIY)
Total: ~$6000

*You could use a Barrett .50 for $8000 but the M14 shoots quite well at 1000yd

As with any project like this though, it's a good idea to double your budget for unexpected costs (~$12,000) and then double** it again if you need someone else to do the work.
So let's say $25,000 for a computer-controlled, 1000yd capable benchrest rifle, with lots of budget padding.
**I have no idea what this would realistically cost. Anyone know better than me?

Of course, you could always bring costs down by starting small (decent .177 airguns are ~$300) and learning from your mistakes before moving up to larger calibers.

Re:Laser guidance?

[RPI Geek]

As with any project like this though, it's a good idea to double your budget for unexpected costs (~$12,000) and then double it again if you need someone else to do the machining** work.
...
**I have no idea what this would realistically cost. Anyone know better than me?

FTFM.

Re:Laser guidance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gyrojets didn't use wings for stabilisation. The rocket exhaust on the projectile was tilted, so that it would spin. This suggests another way of guiding a round: throttle the rocket up and down, once per revolution, to apply a guiding force in a consistent direction.

Re:Laser guidance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your second option becomes a lot more attractive if the bullet's processor is smart enough to do image-recognition. Fire a burst in the general direction of the enemy, and each round picks a human-sized heat source in that direction.

Re:Laser guidance?

[Geotopia]

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

I don't know, but it won't be long after that when the US Government makes up some big made-up technology to scare the Russians (or the enemy-de-jour) that we can take out said guided bullets mid flight.

Re:Laser guidance?

[FroMan]

9mm Luger (there is also Makarov, but probably not what you are referring to is somewhat different) is .355 inches. All of the reloading manuals I've worked with (American) have the numbers in inches. Length of cases, cartridge overall length are both in inches. In addition weights are all done in grains (1/7000th of a pound).

You picked a single round you've heard of which has a metric sound, since it is called a 9mm. All of the SAAMI specs are in inches for the 9mm (and I am guessing all rounds). http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/index.cfm (review page 21 of the ANSI/SAAMI Centerfire Pistol & Revolver pdf).

In addition, .357, .38, .44, .45, .50 are all calibers named after their diameter measured in inches.

Pointless...

[Joce640k]

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...

[phayes]

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...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

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.

Re:Pointless...

[rubycodez]

outstanding (and therefore rare) long range snipers can do less than two foot groups at 2000 yards with 50 BMG or Chey Tac, that's sufficient to take out man-sized target (no, not head shots, pointless...getting hit anywhere in torso will ruin your mark's day)

Re:Pointless...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to post the same thing.
This is an incremental advancement that has just recently become cost effective to move from tanks to long range rifles.
Combined with advancements in hand-held ballistic calculators that account for distance and windage this technology apparently empowers sniper teams to do their job accurately at increasing distances.

Consider the following scenario:
Sniper sights his rifle on-base in the morning then travels for several hours to his target.
During the intervening period the air has warmed up and the sun directly hitting the barrel of his rifle has warmed it up even further.
This will warp the barrel by a minute amount, something that he would have previously accounted for through experience, but now he has a tool to show him exactly how much the barrel has warped and account for it automatically.

Re:Pointless...

[Barny]

Problem is the standard US .50 cal rifle is the Barrat, which last time I looked was 4moa, not bad for hitting cars at that range, but hitting a person? That is why those things have a 5-10 round clip ;)

Re:Pointless...

[Anonymous Coward]

When shooting a .50 cal, you don't need a head shot. Pretty much a hit anywhere is going to blow a big enough hole fast that your target will bleed out fast, or die from trauma to internal organs if hitting in the torso.

Re:Pointless...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are going to miss at 2 miles, at least in the official records, no mater how good your spotter is. The official record for a "kill" is just under 2.5 kilometres, which is approximately 1.5 miles. Having a spotter is essential, but the spotter can't tell you about barrel condition and if one can take that into account accuracy will only increase. Most people can't conceive of how small an error is needed to throw off one's aim but even the beating of your heart can throw things off enough for one to miss the intended point of impact. Adding this to a sniper's equipment is not a negative: anything that can enhance the effectiveness of the team without compromising them is a good thing.

Re:Pointless...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality is that as one's distance to the target increases the margin of error decreases and the small imperfections add up into a deviation off target. Firing on a target a kilometer away is not a big challenge for a trained sniper team with current equipment. FYI you aim for the mass of the body not the head.

Re:Pointless...

[matfud]

There are many variations on this.
Artillery shells with GPS guidance systems. Fire them 15 degrees off target and they will hit it within 10 meters One and a half minutes later.

Laser guided bombs. Often just a clamp on pack to a drop bomb. They require reflections from the target to home in although GPS is coming.

Another system is similar to TOW but without the optic cable. The launcher provides a scan line laser across the area and the non propelled projectiles (clock synched) have a receiver in the rear that enables them to figure out where they are (bit like a light gun on the atari) and then correct for it. The projectiles are passive. If the target moves the launcher tracks it and the grid the projectiles see moves so they correct. It is simple, hard to disrupt (as you have to interupt the information from behind the projectile as they can only "see" behind them) and hard to track (most of these systems are currently missile based where the projectiles are fired from the missiles after the missile is launched. The missile is the thing doing the laser scanning. If you can detect the source all you can hit is the booster.

Something similar should be possible in a bullet. It would perhaps give your position away for the few seconds the rifle was providing information.

Re:Pointless...

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that you won't have to guess at barrel changes from shot to shot. So your second will hit if the wind doesn't change. The ability to correct for changes in barrel characteristics is a bit of a black-art in the sniper world. For example snipers will leave their bullets in the sun to warm them up, in-order to suppress changes from heating because of the first bullet being inserted into a cold barrel vs a warm barrel for the second round. When bullet is warmer it cause the powder in it to burn faster BTW. That is how exact snipping at longer distances is.

Re:Pointless...

[rubycodez]

That is not relevant, the snipers of which I spoke would not use that model of Barrat at that range. There are sub-MOA rifles for 2000 yards

Re:Pointless...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

wrong. I submit these as proof:
New record sniper distance, 2 kills at 8,120ft
Sniper kills 5 in 28 seconds range 1+ miles

Re:Pointless...

[afidel]

The longest US kill was made by Brian Kremer in Iraq at 2,340 meters using the Barrat, just short of the longest sniper shot ever 2,470 meters by Craig Harrison of the UK, but given the relative air densities of Afghanistan and Iraq the US shot was actually more impressive IMHO (though the back to back kills by Mr Harrison makes it essentially a draw).

Re:Pointless...

[phayes]

No. The system in TFA describes methods for upping the accuracy by eliminating/adjusting for variations in the barrel, not technologies to guide the bullet/shell/missile.

Re:Pointless...

[matfud]

yes. I know. The tech is currently being used by the US and UK for artillery. Not needed as such, as at the moment it costs something like $50 to $60 grand for each GPS guided shell. Not the cheapest option. Although they do hit the target. I know the US has them. The UK does not at the moment as they cost too much and there are differences in the artillery we use.

Developed in the US and I must say that I am very impressed.

Re:Pointless...

[matfud]

I know that I could not consistently hit a barn door at 2.5 kilometres let alone 2.3. Doing it multiple times... shockingly good! I do not think that killing people is a good idea but they both did the job asked of them and excelled at it.

Re:Pointless...

[matfud]

8120 feet must be a new record. That is almost 2.5 K. an extremely long way. How some one can hit a target at that distance I do not know.

Re:Pointless...

[matfud]

1.5 K but still impressive! A very long distance. Not the longest recorded shot but the longest for a 7.62 calibre rifle.

Re:Pointless...

[matfud]

A .50 bullet should provide a kill no matter where you hit them. It is a big round and hitting them anywhere will cause them to have a really bad day.

Re:Pointless...

[phayes]

Tank cannons & rifles are both line of sight systems which is why it is useful to correct distortions in the cannon so that the hit-point corresponds to the aim point
Artillery (both tube & rocket) is fundamentally non-line of sight which is why having intelligent munitions which can correct their flight path is useful.

TFA & I have been referring to the first tech. You keep saying that the second is an instance of the first. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Don't bring up gun launched missiles the russian's were using unless you want to look even more like a fool.

Re:Pointless...

[matfud]

It is useful to correct for barrel distortion no matter how far you fire. Do you think that a minor defect would not throw artillery far off target?

No problem. I was just trying to explain some of the technology being used for long range targets.

Did the Russians develop a gun launched missile? Cool idea but it would probably kill the operator. There were enough problems with the development of the star streak missile. It requires small motor to get it out of the tube without hurting the operator. Then a second to get it up to speed. It would burn the poor bugger who fired it if not. It is a line of sight weapon. Short range of about 7 km with the mk2. Designed for hitting aircraft but I think there have been successes against ground targets.

Re:Pointless...

[phayes]

You're truly ignorant. You not only do not know how little you know, you ignore how much what you think you know is wrong. At a rough guess you're 13. Old enough to have read a book or two & think that that makes you smarter than your peers yet not old enough to have learned that your peers are only 13 & you know next to nothing.

Artillery is an area saturation tool. Some barrel variability is desired. It randomizes impacts in the target zone as otherwise successive rounds from the same tube would impact into the same crater as the first. Until the lands get overworn there is thus no reason to perform any barrel correction & once the lands get that worn down you're getting such reduced performance from byblast that the tube needs to be replaced anyway.

You once again display your ignorance by confounding a man launchable hypervelocity missile and a barrel launched AGTM. One difference between the two that you were unable to figure out for yourself is that the rocket motor can't burn someone protected by a few inches of steel, like inside a tank...

The russians weren't the only ones to develop barrel launched ATGMs, but they were the only ones to persist in this failed experiment. The . The problem was not that it would "hurt the operator" but that any use of the main gun would fritz the electonics so that the missile's guidence was very often degraded into uselessness. Now run off & buy more books until you're old enough to go into the military junior.

Why not just deploy a Robot to take the shot?

[phase_9]

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?

[Securityemo]

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?

[sincewhen]

Like a sentry bot in Portal?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[woolpert]

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?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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?

[woolpert]

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?

[SuricouRaven]

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.

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

[Dails]

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

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

[Alex Belits]

If you lose a sniper you've lost many years of training and have to deal with political fallout back home

Isn't it lovely how Americans can only imagine wars of aggression on a foreign soil? It doesn't even occur to them that the defense from such aggression is a legitimate use of the military. What a bunch of disgusting scumbags!

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

[nospam007]

"A robosniper limited to a fixed position is just as much a sitting duck..."

Who cares what happens to a duck.

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

[drinkypoo]

Having a remote operator push the button is really no more scary than having a human on-site and full of adrenaline. Now, automated sniper robots, those are scary to everyone. So far AFAIK nobody has admitted to having them, only sentry guns (closer range) and sniper detectors. I would not be surprised if someone had put together a sniper robot with fully automated long-range target ID, acquisition, and termination, though. It seems like a fairly trivial exercise given relevant open source projects in the wild.

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

[drinkypoo]

Isn't it lovely how Americans can only imagine wars of aggression on a foreign soil? It doesn't even occur to them that the defense from such aggression is a legitimate use of the military. What a bunch of disgusting scumbags!

While what you say is true, the same is true of any superpower. All of them are planning to have their conflicts with other superpowers on foreign soil. Remember, these conflicts are all economically motivated. Now that nations have figured out ways to engage in the entire process of war in other nations save for the manufacturing (which must occur in the home country for maximum production of pork) the collateral cost (at home) is much lower. Russia, China, the USA, we're all dicking around in other countries.

Don't expect to see any non-"civil" war in any superpower nation any time soon. I don't expect a civil war in any of them either but the best laid plans of mice...

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

[woolpert]

A gun mounted on a vehicle could, in theory, replace a sharpshooter, not a sniper.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft. Fuckin' aimbots. They ruin everything.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case you didn't notice, brave soldiers are dying right now, but I don't see much political fallout. Not much at all. Our current wars are sacred cows because we're cleaning up our tyrant buddies from the past proxy war with communism who slipped their leashes, and we're protecting our manifest destiny to drive a gas-guzzling vehicle by disguising it as the rightous glory of the free market and our "vital interests" (I'm looking at you Blankfein, you criminal). Surprised you haven't figured this out.

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

[SuricouRaven]

The US has land borders with only two other countries, both of which it is on fairly good terms with. Further, no other power would dare invade - because at best they'd lose, and at worst they'd pose enough of a threat that the US was forced to put it's nuclear weapons to use.Also, I'm British.

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

[icebraining]

Why climb stairs or crawl when you can fly a few feet above the ground like the current autonomous quadcopters? Fly to a high position, land, take the shot, fly away close to the ground before they can even see it.

And there are already papers discussing techniques for passive source range measurement.

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

[UncleTogie]

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.

Who needs the military? Samsung makes robots like that for sentry duty, and has for years:

http://media.abovetopsecret.com/media/854/Samsungs_Killbot/

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

[theArtificial]

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.

Who needs the military? Samsung makes robots like that for sentry duty, and has for years: http://media.abovetopsecret.com/media/854/Samsungs_Killbot/

What's with the Pirates of the Caribbean music about half way in? Avast! There be a robotic sentry, says I!

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

[cusco]

I do. Ducks are delicious.

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

[Alex Belits]

So, even Americans realize that US can get rid of most of its military, use now-free resources to build a viable, independent economy at home, and it would be still under no threat from abroad?

Then you guys are even MORE disgusting for not doing it.

Overpowered?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Compaqt]

You laugh, but this technology will help save lives.

Re:Overpowered?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

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

Re:Overpowered?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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).

Re:Overpowered?

[BrokenHalo]

"Infidel" simply means "without faith". In my case, that is literally true, but so-called Christians or Muslims throwing the term at each other has about as much meaning as calling them flobbalobs - except that the latter at least has enough of an echo of Monty Python to be funny.

Re:Overpowered?

[denzacar]

Death to flobbalobs!

Re:Overpowered?

[TapeCutter]

"Flobbalob" reminds me of "Bill and Ben the flower pot men".

Re:Overpowered?

[cusco]

I, for one, don't think that the lives of scumbag snipers, mercs, and other slimebag assassins are worth saving, and in fact would be all for anything that shortens their miserable existence as much as possible. When someone's only reason for existence is slaughtering people who have never done anything to them (and don't lie to yourself, people don't make it through sniper school if they don't enjoy the idea of killing people who can't shoot back) then our society desperately needs to remove them from the gene pool.

I might make one exception, if the sniper is targeting generals and politicians who promote wars. That'll never happen though, since anyone ordering an action like that knows it would be open season on them as well, and there is no creature on the planet more cowardly than a warmonger.

Re:Overpowered?

[mjwalshe]

really so the HMG team that a sniper that took out in Afghanistan where just taking their DShK out for a walk - yes right and Donald trump isn't a "loony"

RIFLE IS FINE

[tpotus]

http://208.116.9.205/10/content/25627/1.jpg

Re:RIFLE IS FINE

[Securityemo]

PEBTH (Problem Exists Between Trigger and Hair)?

Ob

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Walk away

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you die painfully.

Re:Walk away

[peragrin]

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

[jellomizer]

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

[Securityemo]

Yet, common morality tells you that you must let the child grow up in peace still.

Re:Walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Walk away

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Internet tough guy detected.

Re:Walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[risinganger]

In fairness we've been hearing about America fighting the war on terror for years now so it's an easy mistake to make :-P

Re:Walk away

[dotancohen]

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!

My god. In my army (Israel) we generally assume that muzzle flashes have kids playing around them, and we don't fire until we have the actual terrorists either on the iron sites or better yet, a sharpshooter with a magnifying optical scope to neutralise him. Those who fire in the name Allah (which happens to be the same God that I pray to) do it to hurry themselves and their family to Heaven. Don't do them any favours by killing their families. That is what they want (quick way to Heaven). Why else do you think they take their kids with them?

What army do you serve in? US? That is disgusting what you tell about disregard for human life.

Re:Walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

You and your experience called them commando's, I LOL'd.

Re:Walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

Either that or "cat on keyboard detected".

Re:Walk away

[BrokenHalo]

I hope you die painfully.

Agreed. Anyone who uses an apostrophe to form a plural deserves to be dropped into an ants' nest.

Re:Walk away

[Securityemo]

While I have understood that the Israeli Sayeret forces and/or Mossad are indeed very skilled, this list of targeted killings is not without civilian victims, and the methods used (hellfire missiles, the same as predator drones, and bombs) makes me think there would be more. It could be that this is merely "edge cases" under extreme circumstances, but civilian casualties are still civilian casualties.

Re:Walk away

[pjt33]

You're mishearing. It's actually the war on tourism. They're trying to make airports so unpleasant that no-one uses them.

Re:Walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

Allah (which happens to be the same God that I pray to)

Looks to me like He doesn't give a damn about either one of you. (Don't you just hate it when you give a big party and the guest of honor doesn't even show up?)

Re:Walk away

[dotancohen]

While I have understood that the Israeli Sayeret forces and/or Mossad are indeed very skilled, this list of targeted killings is not without civilian victims, and the methods used (hellfire missiles, the same as predator drones, and bombs) makes me think there would be more. It could be that this is merely "edge cases" under extreme circumstances, but civilian casualties are still civilian casualties.

Thanks, that was an interesting read. I'm infantry, I cannot speak for the air force, but your assesment closely matches my own. Israeli soldiers are here to protect civilians, be them Israeli or Palestinian civilians, equally. And we do a good job of it, despite what you read in the international press.

Re:Walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

What about this interesting suggestion to eliminate suicide attacks: the initiator is motivated by immediate entry into paradise. Word on the ground in Afghanistan is that when the remains are gathered and buried, inclusion of just a small piece of pigmeat with the remains will prevent Allah from seeing the martyr, thus, no paradise, thus, not motivation to die.

Re:Walk away

[bar-agent]

What about this interesting suggestion to eliminate suicide attacks: the initiator is motivated by immediate entry into paradise. Word on the ground in Afghanistan is that when the remains are gathered and buried, inclusion of just a small piece of pigmeat with the remains will prevent Allah from seeing the martyr, thus, no paradise, thus, not motivation to die.

You don't think a terrorist imam wouldn't tell a prospective bomber that Allah would give him a pass on that bit of pig meat? Especially if he dies in action against the Great Satan, and even more especially considering this transparent attempt by the same Great Satan to cheat the bomber of his well-deserved martyrdom through the sacrilege and desecration of his corpse? Can't fool Allah that easily. These guys aren't idiots, you know.

Besides, religion is just a garnish, not the actual motivation. I have heard of several more likely ones.

Some suicide bombers are willing to be suicide bombers because they have no chance of getting laid on this earth, and are generally pissed off about it. Point them at someone to focus their pissed-off-ness on, fan it to a flame, and there you go.

Others are — surprise — suicidal. This may or may not be related to not getting laid.

And then there are the ones motivated by revenge.

And a very few are probably intelligent yet naive enough to do this on ideological or rational grounds.

And finally, I figure some suicide bombers have probably succumbed to heavy peer pressure/indoctrination/brain-washing of the sort applied by armies, gangs, abusive spouses, and interrogators.

Re:Walk away

[risinganger]

In that case... I hereby pronounce America victorious on their war on tourism. I know I have no intention of going there any time soon because of how they treat visitors.

Re:Walk away

[cusco]

The majority (if not all) of the suicide bombers in the terror actions in Peru had no ideological or religious grounds for their actions. The Sendero Luminoso would find some poor sucker dying of cancer or something and in debt up to his ears. They'd pay off his debt and promise him a quick death and his survivors a stipend. Then there were the terminally stupid. One campesina woman was caught at an event with a grenade belt. The Senderistas had given her $50 and told her that if she pulled the string when the president shook her hand that it would spray paint on him. (Fortunately she showed the belt to a relative who had served in the military first.)

I don't pretend to know how many of the suicide bombers in the current actions are religious fanatics, but I'll guarantee it's not all of them. I'd be surprised if it were actually the majority.

Re:Walk away

[bhiestand]

What about this interesting suggestion to eliminate suicide attacks: the initiator is motivated by immediate entry into paradise. Word on the ground in Afghanistan is that when the remains are gathered and buried, inclusion of just a small piece of pigmeat with the remains will prevent Allah from seeing the martyr, thus, no paradise, thus, not motivation to die.

We did this in the Philippines... only worse. We cut open pigs, shoved the fighters' corpses inside, then stitched them back up and buried them.

Permanently buried inside a pig. It didn't really ensure our victory there.

Re:Walk away

[dotancohen]

What about this interesting suggestion to eliminate suicide attacks: the initiator is motivated by immediate entry into paradise. Word on the ground in Afghanistan is that when the remains are gathered and buried, inclusion of just a small piece of pigmeat with the remains will prevent Allah from seeing the martyr, thus, no paradise, thus, not motivation to die.

We do not defile corpses here. I'm astonished to learn that some might do that.

Re:Walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

My father (NZ) and father in law (Aus) were both military (the latter serving in Vietnam). The common consensus from their experience on multi-force exercises over their decades of service was that Americans were always the least competent of the allied forces. They talk tough, and come with the biggest guns, but lacked the ability to grasp the nuances of battle, and the 'bomb the shit out of everything' mentality usually saw them on the losing side.
I worked with a former British army tank commander not long ago who served in Iraq 1 and he pretty much repeated everything I'd heard from my fathers.
And now I read you post and despite not serving a single day in the military, I am building up a very clear picture of why the US seems to have such a poor record on the field of battle.

Re:Walk away

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you take care of the kids with white phosphorus right?

sacrificial sat, detroit security forces attack...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:A lunch

[Securityemo]

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?

marksman != sniper

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the military circle-jerk begin!

Re:marksman != sniper

[sincewhen]

So, sharpshooter = Samurai, Sniper = Ninja.

Re:marksman != sniper

[cynyr]

no no no

Sharpshooter = Pirate
Sniper = Ninja

let the sharpshooters WIN!

like waving a copy of mein kampf at bar mitzvah

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Something wrong here

[Alain Williams]

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

[Securityemo]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[jellomizer]

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

[jovius]

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

[Chemisor]

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

[Kreigaffe]

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

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Something wrong here

[jovius]

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

[BrokenHalo]

Attractive though the idea might be, banning arms exports now is sort of like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

However, I agree with the GP about the disconnect between killer and killee.

Leaving aside crossbows or longbows, If we were limited to fighting each other with sharp-edged instruments, we would at least have to have personal contact with the results of our agression while our opponent's blood and guts spill out over the pavement or ourselves. In other words, if you want someone to die, you have to really mean it.

Sure, there will inevitably be those of us who don't care, but at least this would force a degree of honesty (of sorts) that is likely to be less common when all you have to to is stand at a distance and pull a trigger with your index finger.

Re:Something wrong here

[dadelbunts]

Ah i wish i lived in a world where banning exports of weapons to a country meant that country had no weapons exported to it.

Re:Something wrong here

[BrokenHalo]

9/11 finally brought some kind of perspective to the wars the US have started the last fifty years.

Way to make yourself unpopular here on Slashdot (as your current "-1: disagree" mod shows) but nevertheless you have a point. And in fact, this gives a useful contrast to the earlier point about separation of combatants: the guys who flew those planes into the WTC on 9/11 were not standing at a distance while their victims died. They were sitting at the front of their projectile, and first to die. It's easy to find perjorative names for them, but they were not cowards.

Re:Something wrong here

[Charliemopps]

Snipers do not kill significant numbers of troops. They, in fact, are used to kill those kings and generals sitting several miles from the front line. If anything, they are the most likely to make military leaders negotiate.

Re:Something wrong here

[cowboy76Spain]

The issue I see in Libya is that (as in Irak or Afghanistan) we know (think to know *) who we are against but we do not know who we are helping. Even if I am looking for info, the only I get is that we are helping "the rebels". This may be good in a Star Wars film, but I would like to know:

• Who are they
• Are they united or multiple groups
• What are they going to do once (if) they oust Gaddaffi. There is an agreement or will it degenerate in a second civil war between them.

So far, nobody seems insterested in asnwering those questions, and given the recent history I find that very troubling.

*: Of course, our media and politics dumb it down for the people in a single "Mula Omar/Saddam/Gaddaffi is evil and that is all the problem the country has. Once he is gone all is going to be OK" and forget to tell what they are gonna do with the people who allow/ed them to stay in power and who back them.

Re:Something wrong here

[moortak]

I'm not sure that would do any good. Compare the loss of life in the 1258 siege of Baghdad to the 2003 invasion of the same city. Targeted killing at a distance may allow for reduced consequences for the belligerents, but it also allows for discretion.

Re:Something wrong here

[PPH]

This can only result more people being needlessly hurt.

But some people need to be hurt.

Glib comment aside, its the job of our military to do the hurting in the most efficient manner possible. That is; take out as many of them while losing as few of your own and/or innocent bystanders.

In this sense, snipers are probably the most humane 'weapon' we have to deploy. They select a target and observe it carefully for a time. So errors in target selection are minimized. And the nature of the weapon is such that minimal damage is done to other personnel in the vicinity of the target (sorry about two or three people standing in a line).

Re:Something wrong here

[Securityemo]

The Swedish media has invited some discussion over this, mainly in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement. General consensus seems to be that the rebels are mostly unified and "tolerably secular", even if they are naturally a horde of all sorts of people. There was, for example, reports of anti-gay slogans being shouted over rebel radio.

Re:Something wrong here

[Mr. Foogle]

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

Giving soldiers effective tools makes war less likely, not more likely.

The idea is that if you're armed forces can mow the opposition down like wheat before a threshing machine, the opposition won't even try it.

Look: war is going to happen. Would you be more afraid of a mob of guys with sticks, or an army than can take you out before you know they're there?

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, have clearly never had another man attempt to kill you, or have had to kill in combat.

If your opinion on war is that the men fighting it are too distanced and unaffected by their actions, i implore you to enlist and actually get a first hand experience with what you're talking about.

R.I.P. J.R.S., Z.D.S., J.D.P., D.M.A., J.D.D., N.D.P.

Sincerely,
Infantryman

Re:Something wrong here

[TheCarp]

I disagree, I think much of our society is based on the fact that most people are pretty decent and, don't really steal, murder, rape, and coerce eachother that much in most normal situations. Even some of the more common criminals are what, shoplifting by punk kids? Most people who commit a crime or two when they are young well... as we age we don't do as much of anything as we used to, and even those kids who may commit a minor crime, don't just willy nilly steal from friends, they usually have some lame rationalization for it.

I can't think of any time in my life where it was the law that really dictated my behaviour except totally superficial BS like yearly car inspections and paying parking tickets. Never was I like, boy if it only wasn't for the police I would shove a gun in someones face and take their wallet, or rob a bank, or rape a woman.

Honestly, given the pattern with criminality and age, I think everything that is done to provide more opportunity for parents to raise their kids properly and provide access and opportunity to ways to make a living and provide for oneself and attain a similar level to others does way way more to reduce crime than offering law enforcement even fantastically unlimited resources can.... preventing new criminals from moving on to more and worst crime or from doing it int he first place.... and existing criminals are a time limited problem.

Shit, how worried are you about a frail, 70 year old guy whose crime was raping 20 year old girls? His targets would kick his ass and put him in the hospital. Guess what, everyone ages, so, think of it like insects... you don't need to kill the adults if you can interrupt their breeding cycle or kill their grubs int he ground.

Re:Something wrong here

[Kelbear]

This subject here is about the effect of increased distance and the ability to do violence far from the consequences, and far from the risk of retribution.

Infantrymen trade fire within shooting range of the opponent. Their perspective is not relevant to the subject at hand, because the effective range of their weapons means they have little separation from the consequences and the risk of retribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

"Collateral Murder" is a video already well-known on Slashdot, and it is relevant to the subject at hand.

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt most of these Middle East and other dictatorships have UAV's at their disposal and if they did it would quickly be taken down.

I am surprised you aren't getting upset over these dictators turning their automatic weapons on the civilians, the automatic machine gun is probably the worse thing to worry about. Forget about UAV's/Predator drones as they are probably more precise and can actually have FLIR footage of what is going on, yeah accidents happen.

Private soldiers make mistakes all the time, fire randomly in directions without knowing where the enemy is.

If we can march a robot right down the street to a rebel strong hold without firing a shot and grabbing their dictator by the throat to bring them in, well than I am all for that instead of sending a platoon of Marines to level the whole city to get to him.

Oooohhh noesss the Kings back in the days had big cannons where they could stand far away and fire..... people have been crying unfair forever.

Re:Something wrong here

[jovius]

Precisely, but there would be a legal framework to prosecute the guilty. Although I do understand that the selfish prevail, but it would be rather odd not to try to end it.

Re:Something wrong here

[hibji]

On the flip side, these soldiers are also separated by their fight or flight response and so-called blood lust. In my opinion, a sniper is less likely to innocents because he is scare or trigger happy. Whether these snipers kill innocents for sport is a different story.

But I truly believe that these drones are making life safer for civilians. These drones can loiter for many hours to properly identify their targets. There is a chain of command for release of weapons. All telemetry is recorded, so there is a record of actions which allows for consequences.

You say there is less motivation to peacefully settle arguments. Do you really truly believe that everything can be settled diplomatically? I think the whole idea of war is to make it the other idea side so scared, disrupted, demoralized, that the sue for peace. Having better ways to do that accomplishes this mission.

Re:Something wrong here

[willy_me]

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?

Soldiers do not make peace, never have and never will. It is the politicians that decide when the killing should start and stop. It is the generals that decide how to most effectively implement the political goals. The soldiers are simply the ones that implement the plan. They can do it via remote control of a drone or they can bash a person's head in with a club. It doesn't matter how it is done or how connected the soldiers are with their actions as it is not the soldiers that decide to go to war. Now if the politicians that decided to go to war were first required to slit the throats a typical 5 person enemy family - just maybe there would be fewer conflicts.

Re:Something wrong here

[francium de neobie]

Now if the politicians that decided to go to war were first required to slit the throats a typical 5 person enemy family - just maybe there would be fewer conflicts.

Why do you think the average politician wouldn't find killing innocent people awesome?

Re:Something wrong here

[Threni]

> It is separating the human cause and effect so that the soldiers are increasingly disconnected from their
> actions.

It's really about reducing your side's deaths. The US military knows that it can get away with killing whoever, whereever, but as soon as the bodybags start coming home people start asking why.

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

They could start with sending the sons and daughters of those who started the war to the front lines.

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm the guy out in the weeds, I *want* something with which I can shoot a guy's eye out at 2 miles.

Re:Something wrong here

[Deliveranc3]

Um, where does right enter into this? So now America knows it can win any war using robotic soldiers, the only people who fight back would simply rather die than be dictated to.

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad, how most people nowadays seem oblivious to natural selection, despite the world still (and always) being dominated by it. Maybe because they have given up their individuality to serve whoever makes their opinions.

That's really the modern weapon of mass-dominance: You dominate his *reality* rather than him. Then he fights for you, and doesn't even know he does. Retribution? Against what? He never knows he is attacked and abused.

BTW: Everyone posting here, including TFS and TFA (and me) fight this modern fight right now. ^^

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're not strange. It's a completely normal thought to have. Perhaps we should go beyond that and be worried about those that *don't* have thoughts like that.

The only problem is that it's half wrong. In peacetime, you want war to be hard to wage, thus making it less likely to happen. But once things have escalated to deadly force, someone is already actively trying to kill your people. Why should you place your side in any more danger than absolutely necessary? That's basically claiming that just because there's a war on, you have a moral obligation to make it easier for the other guy to kill you.

Re:Something wrong here

[pjt33]

Because getting blood out of a good suit is a pain in the arse.

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

Apply that argument universally and consider what that means for the side with the advantage.

Re:Something wrong here

[matfud]

Shot by them or by shot by your own side. Great choice. The USSR tried this in the second world war. The Brits tried in the first world war. It is even better when you are a conscripted grunt. Killed for not agreeing to go to war, killed for not obeying orders, killed for obeying them and living a crap life for possibly many years then die.
Some wars are driven top down. Current ones seem to be bottom up. People do not like you invading their country. It may be better in a few generations because of it but now they are suffering.

"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."

If you believe that you have truly lost it. There are many different kinds of war and in many cases there is no "good guy" nor a "bad guy". I though Americans had learned that in Vietnam. (Even though the U.S. was partly responsible for the war because of their choice of allies in WW2)

Re:Something wrong here

[matfud]

Snipers do not kill significant numbers of any personel.
Kings or Generals? You must be joking.
They kill from a long range and are hard to retaliate against or locate. They protect their own side, they instil fear (who knows when they will get shot) into the other side.

Most high ranking people have been injured or killed by someone very close to them physically and often in their trusted group of friends.

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS, and I call it with extreme prejudice.

There's about 3/4 of a million Rwandans who were hacked by machetes. That's pretty much eliminating the gap between human cause and effect, don't you think? Did the face-to-face manner of the killing keep that tally so low? Or is a machete too much distance between combatants for your taste? Okay, there were hundreds of thousand of Rwandans who were raped as a form of combat. Is THAT close enough for you? Did the face-to-face manner of that keep the tally so low? Were the rapists somehow physically disconnected from the victims?

For Pete's sake. You want to lay the blame on the doorsteps of the military industrial complex? Screw You. Here's a news flash - it wouldn't be hard to do the math - distance * approximate number of victims * physical effort, for example, to show that the most extreme systems for soldiers to kill other soldiers has existed for years, decades. And here's a news flash: THEY WERE NEVER USED.

Soldiers are pawns in the game. They are tools of diplomacy by other means. You want to stop wars, stop them before they start. You want to stop the fighting, don't let it start, or make sure it ends quickly. Expecting two guys out there to negotiate things is the height of arrogance. Do you really think that wars are fought because soldiers are vicious, cruel, inhuman or sub-human cretins? Not at all. Wars are fought for the same reason school yard bullies exist. At the end of the day, there are people who are willing to use physical violence to accomplish their goals, and there are other people who are willing to use physical violence to stop them. It's a shoving match in the hallways at grade school, it's global warfare when writ large.

But don't let reality get in the way of your arrogant back patting.

Re:Something wrong here

[ToasterMonkey]

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 should fight closer so there is opportunity to "settle the argument" rather than fight?
You make it sound like war is a one way affair, like we aren't being blown up and shot at, but carelessly throw stones at others.

Was war less brutal in the dark ages or something, cause I'm not following you. Short distances did not make the world a more friendly place, nor did it prevent any war.

I suppose that the rot really started when kings stopped leading their troops into battle

So.. when leaders participated in battle, and got blood on their hands... these were better times and they what, were better decision makers?

Here's a tip bub, when your king or general is personally slaughtering folks, there is no hope for peace.

What
The
Fuck
Are
You
Smoking

Re:Something wrong here

[cusco]

The Huns didn't seem to have much problem depopulating a huge swath of eastern Europe face to face. I think you might be surprised how may people won't care.

Re:Something wrong here

[cusco]

the opposition won't even try it.

When was the last time "the opposition" tried anything against the US? Pearl Harbor. Every single military action the US has been involved in since has been a war of choice, and the choice has always been Washington's. We could reduce the US military budget (calling it the "defense budget" is one of the most disgusting jokes ever devised) by 90 percent and still have the world's second highest level of military spending. The idea that there is any legitimate reason why the US has to spend more money on its military than all other countries in the world **COMBINED** is absurd. Effective tools my ass.

Re:Something wrong here

[cusco]

Tell that to the Palestinian school children that Israeli snipers regularly target. Deliberately. And then boast about publicly.

Re:Something wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

The Mesoamerican ballgame was one method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_ballgame#Cultural_aspects

Re:Something wrong here

[afidel]

Huh, a sniper is emotionally much closer to their target than your average infantry soldier doing a spray and pray, same for the predator pilot. Watching the death of your target has got to be harder than responding to imminent danger at a much closer distance.

Re:Something wrong here

[afidel]

The Russian snipers at Stalingrad were quite good at taking out officers, not that taking out field commanders is sufficiently high to change the strategic aims of the enemy.

Re:Something wrong here

[Mr. Foogle]

Um, where does right enter into this?

Good point. I don't know.

the only people who fight back would simply rather die than be dictated to.

Not true: look up the theory of 3g and 4g conflict. Briefly: no army in the world can stand up to a US Armored Brigade. So they don't even try: the conflict shifts from tanks and airplanes to economic warfare, unconventional warfare .... anything but where the US Army is current good at.

Re:Something wrong here

[Mr. Foogle]

The idea that there is any legitimate reason why the US has to spend more money on its military than all other countries in the world **COMBINED** is absurd. Effective tools my ass.

The money spent by the DoD buys a lot more than you suggest. The US - for example - put a lot of effort into defending Japan in the Cold War so the Japanese did not have to. Japan spent more on 'stuff', we got Hello Kitty and the Prius in return.

I agree with your conclusion: time to let the rest of the world fend for itself. Now, if this gets the Japanese back into an acquisitive mood, or the Germans get feisty and look to Russia ... well hard cheese for their neighbors, I guess.

Potentially game-changer?

[blind biker]

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?

[MichaelSmith]

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?

[Kjella]

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?

[blind biker]

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?

[adolf]

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?

[MichaelSmith]

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?

[MichaelSmith]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[oodaloop]

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?

[blind biker]

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?

[minorproblem]

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?

[blind biker]

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 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?

[Kreigaffe]

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.

Re:Potentially game-changer?

[camperdave]

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?

[Duradin]

People willing to use suicide bombers would be willing to use suicide gunners that get close enough that spray and pray has a chance of working before getting mowed down by security or blowing themselves up.

The bad guys already have access to high power highly accurate sniper rifles (even a lowly modern deer rifle can reach out quite a ways with some accuracy), if you're willing to lose the gunman OSOK isn't important anymore.

Re:Potentially game-changer?

[BrokenHalo]

Snipers don't ride bikes. They drive Aston Martins.

I am not a sniper, so I may be completely off-beam here, but I thought the whole point of being a sniper was to be inconspicuous. Which would probably mean driving a Toyota Corolla...

Re:Potentially game-changer?

[misexistentialist]

Won't be enough to get through extensive security buffers and numerous counter-snipers unless it shoots around corners.

Re:Potentially game-changer?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think this is scary, take a gander at the Barret .50 cal sniping system with weather monitoring and correction.

Re:Potentially game-changer?

[PPH]

Recoil is certainly an issue for rapid fire. But if this (and a few other problems) can be solved, the approach might be worth considering. Its sort of a long range version of a Phalanx system, which fires a radar guided gatling gun and corrects its aim by watching the outgoing rounds as well as the target.

One thing to consider might be a tripod mounted remote controlled sniper rifle. While all the cross wind and other aiming issues still remain, such a system can remove most of the variables involved with a hand held weapon. The remote control could be as simple as a short fiber optic cable or r.f. link to an operator console. The operator would set up the rifle and retreat to a position where targeting/firing would be handled with somewhat better concealment. If a rapid exit is required, the rifle could be equipped with a destruct charge (to render it inoperative should the enemy retrieve it). The operator just needs to drop the remote control and run.

Once one removes the human/rifle interface, many improvements can be made to optimize the weapon for reduced recoil, rapid fire, automated tracking, etc. And the training to achieve precision muscle control would be eliminated, making the pool of operators (lets not call them snipers anymore) larger.

Re:Potentially game-changer?

[Anonymous Coward]

The tracker device would not be attached to weapon itself but be located to small tripod next to the rifle. The tracker would collect data of all the factors on bullet flytime.

But hey, who in the end does even need those? There are (or were) people who could shoot without optics middle of man head over 800 meters away. With optics, they can shoot targets size of the SSD drive from 1000 meters. And you dont actually, need anything after first shot. As that is the only thing what you get and what you want. A single shot and you are done. Time to change place and fast. Usually at those situations you dont even take your weapon to parts as it is too heavy/big to be carried if the mission was just simply kill/destroy single target.

But to kill a person from 1000m, you dont need much. Only a rifle build in great quality, like one of the SAKO models with correct caliber and then it is just up to shooter skills to get first bullet in the target. And when it comes to public places, politicians would not need to be worrying themselfs if they would not cheat, lie and cause all other problems.

Re:Potentially game-changer?

[skywiseguy]

doesn't this sort of defeat the purpose of a sniper to begin with?

Re:Potentially game-changer?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that will hinder the marksman will be wind.

I read a sci-fi novel where large fans were being used to protect a politician from sniper weapons. Why isn't this used in real life?

From the article.........

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.........

[EmagGeek]

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

Re:From the article.........

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[HangingChad]

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?

Re:Not the only factors

[swb]

I'm surprised they don't have a scope that can be programmed with ballistic info for your round. Either using canned data for a given projectile/load or with custom measurements taken using custom loads to account for velocity, bullet drop, wind speed and direction and humidity.

As I envision it, the scope would laser sight the distance to the target and adjust the reticule automatically to account for the distance, deviation from the horizontal plane, humidity, all using the data programmed into the scope.

You'd have to enter wind speed and direction at each shot, but that's more of a crapshoot because the wind can vary within the bullet path. Using actual measured data of wind impact on test shots, there's probably good statistical methods that could allow the scope to compensate based on rough estimates of wind speed and direction.

You might even be able to have the reticule adjust for the rifle recoil, too.

Re:Not the only factors

[drinkypoo]

As I envision it, the scope would laser sight the distance to the target and adjust the reticule automatically to account for the distance, deviation from the horizontal plane, humidity, all using the data programmed into the scope.

Consumer-level scopes in the $800 range already can do the laser rangefinding and drop adjustment. IIRC only the Casio is "ruggedized" (read: water resistant) in this price range.

Re:Not the only factors

[modecx]

I'm surprised they don't have a scope that can be programmed with ballistic info for your round. Either using canned data for a given projectile/load or with custom measurements taken using custom loads to account for velocity, bullet drop, wind speed and direction and humidity.

They do have something like this, commercially available even. Barrett Optical Ranging System

The only thing out of your list that it doesn't have is 1) its own laser ranging system 2) it doesn't account for wind or humidity. Laser ranging isn't a big deal, there are some very good commercial units available, and you can also use the mil-dots in the scope to guess range up to 1000+ yards with reasonable accuracy (depending on the optic). Humidity and wind are often highly variable along the bullet's flight path, so there's no practical way to accomplish measuring and correcting for these variables. Ability to read wind will always make or break a sniper team, at least until we develop man portable ultra-high velocity rail guns, or anti-personnel lasers.

505 kill sniper with iron sights

[Clueless Moron]

The famed Finnish sniper Simo Häyhä (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

[Kreigaffe]

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

[e9th]

And optical sights reflect light. The remarkable Carlos Hathcock 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.

Re:505 kill sniper with iron sights

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easily solvable! paint the lens black!

Re:505 kill sniper with iron sights

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

A large objective lens is precisely the reason why he didn't like to use the scopes. Sticking a large unnatural looking object up above cover was what he was trying to avoid.

Re:505 kill sniper with iron sights

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 And at that time the "fighting distance" was not too long. 400 meters was about the longest you could get. For a normal grunt 150m was the norm. 50 I guess would be more appropriate. At those days you could almost see the white of your enemy's eyes - at that time the saying went "Do not shoot until you see the white in their eyes.". Now it's just a computer game, nothing personal...

Re:505 kill sniper with iron sights

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually WW2 times optics were great. Had even 4-10 powers (factors) and they were not so different from todays typical optics. As they had the coating, gas filling and easy and accurate metering. The lighting was not either much a problem than it is today. Of course, today snipers can have all kind fancy gadgets and tech from IR optics to NV optics.
But even today same problems exist than WWII times optics, the optic causes shooter to rise head too much on the rifle and it is shiny thing what can make out your position.

Re:505 kill sniper with iron sights

[ChrisMaple]

Yes, that's funny, but consider: Infrared can pass through many black plastics. I even have an image intensifier that does just that. One problem is that high quality IR systems aren't cheap.

Re:505 kill sniper with iron sights

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that he made a lot of his kills with his SMG as well. The guy is one of those rare "ace" 10%ers who do 90% of the killing.

Re:A lunch

[g0bshiTe]

50% urine

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

How usefull is this really?

[Posting=!Working]

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.

Re:How usefull is this really?

[swb]

I put a half a case of .223 through my AR-15 on a hot day in July over the span of about two hours. I'm not sure I noticed much in changed accuracy, although I was only shooting clay targets set on edge at a 100 yards. I was still easily hitting the center of the targets.

I personally don't think that the barrel heating issue matters much for slow fire; perhaps at extreme distances (700+ yards), but I would also assume that bull barrels would compensate easily.

Re:How usefull is this really?

[Anonymous Coward]

In actual combat situations where a sniper is providing cover for ground troops, they tend to fire fairly often, even if they don't necessarily hit anything.

As for the heat distortion, it's my understanding that we aren't talking about the barrel actually deforming in a serious way, but the thermodynamic effects of hot spots in the barrel when the projectile passes. I know this can be a problem for longer range shots using high caliber, because I've shot a few thousand rounds through a Barret, and after the first 10 in a row, you start getting variances you didn't have before. Especially at 1000 yards. I've never hit anything at that range, but at 800 I'm pretty good. (as in 1 shot in 3 hits the quarter sized target).

I'm sure it doesn't need to be said, but I'm not military, and I'm not a trained sniper, so take it all with a grain of salt (peter).

Re:How usefull is this really?

[ToasterMonkey]

I put a half a case of .223 through my AR-15 on a hot day in July over the span of about two hours. I'm not sure I noticed much in changed accuracy, although I was only shooting clay targets set on edge at a 100 yards. I was still easily hitting the center of the targets.

I personally don't think that the barrel heating issue matters much for slow fire; perhaps at extreme distances (700+ yards), but I would also assume that bull barrels would compensate easily.

Um, have you ever sighted in a rifle?

Anyways, we're talking about the realm of 1000 yard firing ranges here, and in practice shooting at distances of - google it

Robo-Gunsight System Makes Target's Death Easier

[foma84]

go figure.

Gyrojet rockets spun. No wings.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

One shot, one kill.

Dirty aimbot cheaters

[davidbrit2]

What's next, wallhack?

Re:Dirty aimbot cheaters

[AlfaMike]

To think that aimbot will soon be a requirement for realism in war games.

Re:Dirty aimbot cheaters

[davidbrit2]

Activision will have to include it in COD Modern Warfare 17, due out sometime in 2012.

Re:Dirty aimbot cheaters

[Anonymous Coward]

/cp hack in the console, and if that doesn't get you. There's spamming, tubing, nading, tking, and of course the p90 nubs. The Ak pub pros and general juvenile your mom jokes to contend with. I wish the enemy all the best.

PS your mom said to say hi.

Re:Dirty aimbot cheaters

[Anonymous Coward]

wireframe mode:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1750661/the-backpack-that-lets-users-see-through-walls

not quite wallhacks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMON_breach_grenade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon

about as close as you are going to get:
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Explosive-Ordnance-Disposal/Rapid-Wall-Breaching-Kit-RWBK-United-States.html

Mostly in your addled head

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The shot is the easy part.

[nsaspook]

As anyone who hunts knows, the hardest part about putting a bullet on target is getting there and if you're a sniper getting out after the trigger is pulled.

One word: Windage

[RogueWarrior65]

Downrange wind will screw this whole thing up. Having shot at 1000 yards I can tell you that the best-laid plans are all out the window when there are variable winds along the flight path. In addition, the cold-bore shot is often quite different than a warm-bore shot. The first one is usually the only one that counts. After that, they know something's up and will act accordingly.

Correction

[MadTwit]

Makes their job easier.

Dispersed Warfare versus Personal Courage

[handy_vandal]

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

You're not alone: I understand and share your feelings, and I'm sure many other people feel much the same.

But let me put a twist on this. The military also knows it's a problem.

For most of the history of warfare (I'm riffing here on War by Gwynne Dyer), soldiers were usually in close company with their fellow soldiers -- a line of a dozen (or a hundred, or a thousand) men, carrying spears or muskets, facing a line of men similarly armed. This was true right up through the First World War: men packed into trenches.

The Second World War changed the pattern: increasing lethality of weapons, combined with motorized troop mobility, dictated dispersion of soldiers -- large numbers of them -- into individual, isolated foxholes.

After the war, the US Army did a study: how effective were the foxhole-isolated soldiers? How did those men actually behave? What percentage fired their rifles?

It turned out that a large number of soldiers never fired their weapons. They stayed down in their holes, stricken by fear. And ashamed: each soldier thought that he was the only one, that his buddies from Boot Camp must be doing their duty, but me, I'm cowering in my own shit in a hole because I'm so fucking scared of death.

Courage in the face of death. Not an easy thing to muster. But most men can do it, if they're in the company of their fellow soldiers.

So, naturally, the Army -- the most pragmatic institution Humankind has ever devised -- asked: what do we do about courage in this new age of dispersed warfare?

And the answer was: train men to greater levels of violence. So that, even when isolated from his fellows, the individual soldier will still be capable of killing and dying as ordered.

Re:Dispersed Warfare versus Personal Courage

[Animats]

It turned out that a large number of soldiers never fired their weapons.

That "research", by S.L.A. Marshall, has been discredited. Read Col. Dave Hackworth's "About Face". Hackworth was a very good infantry commander and worked with S.L.A. Marshall in Vietnam, where Marshall was a journalist. Marshall made up a lot of what he wrote. His work reads like he was there when, most of the time, he wasn't.

The big breakthrough in training was in the late 1970s, when the U.S. Army developed the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES). This is the militarized version of laser tag. For the first time, soldiers fired their weapons during force-on-force exercises and the hits and misses were tallied. Previously, everybody made lots of noise with blanks and umpires randomly decided who died, like dungeon masters. With MILES, troops had to aim to hit in a combat training situation, because their performance was being measured. They got a lot better at it, and US infantry became much more effective as a result.

The problem was not soldiers failing to fire their weapons. It was firing but not hitting the enemy.

Re:Dispersed Warfare versus Personal Courage

[Anonymous Coward]

As somebody who spent three years in the OPFOR and another three in the regular infantry, I can tell you that Hackworth's glowing assessment of MILES (which I have heard of before, although I have never read his book) is not at all conform with my experiences or those of many other soldiers I knew/know. His assessment is so incongruous with my experience that I am left to wonder if he has some personal stake in pushing it. For the Infantryman, MILES does not work right unless you train it as a separate weapon system, which we did as the OPFOR and which was why we usually won the exercises. Even then, half the time the training units did not even have the batteries in their harnesses to register when they got hit. From my experience, at least two thirds of the infantry kills on either side were O/Cs (the umpires) with their o-called God-Guns. Oh, by the way, infantry MILES did not tally kills as you suggest until about 2000 (I was there when that innovation was rolled out), they just beeped when you got hit.

What did get tallied was _vehicle_ MILES hits, which is not at all what you are suggesting. MILES was a breakthrough because it allowed senior NCOs and company and field-grade officers (up to light Colonels) to maneuver units and learn from the after action reviews which _always_ focussed on the vehicle tallies and positions. Our consistent assessment was that its value in training anybody below squad leader was negligible, mostly because they spent two days hanging around waiting for leaders to run through the troop leading procedures again and again and then usually "died" within five minutes of their unit making contact. For Staff-Sergeants and up, however, it was great because they got to learn how to lead and make decisions and see how their assessments compared with reality. This is rather the opposite of what you suggest.

Disclaimer: I was a company grade officer; the personal testimony of enlisted men might differ. Also, it has been a few years for me, so this might be different now. However, given the nature of the tactical environment today, I doubt that training to MILES in Alabama or Germany is of much value to the riflemen.

Re:Dispersed Warfare versus Personal Courage

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, naturally, the Army -- the most pragmatic institution Humankind has ever devised ...."

The military? Pragmatic? Read more military history. Or 'Catch-22' by Josef Heller. And stop rereading 'Starship Troopers'....but yeah, otherwise you're right.

Re:Dispersed Warfare versus Personal Courage

[Animats]

I can tell you that Hackworth's glowing assessment of MILES (which I have heard of before, although I have never read his book) is not at all conform with my experiences or those of many other soldiers I knew/know.

First, mod parent up.

Second, the MILES enthusiast I've read was not Hackworth (whose career predated MILES) but Lt. Gen. Daniel Bolger. In his junior officer days, he wrote a book ("Dragons at War") about his unit's experience at the National Training Center.

What is corrected for?

[PPH]

According to TFA, the sensor system involves fiber/lasers to measure the deflection or curve in the barrel and make corrections. But there's also the issue of distortion between the scope mount and the rifle barrel due to rough handling. Normally, this isn't a problem on a target range where a few test shots can be made to check accuracy and the rifle is handled carefully. But how much of a factor is this out in the field (for snipers) where a properly sighted scope has to be carried for miles through a pretty hostile environment. And the target generally will not sit still while you sight it in again.

There's Homer Simpson!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's Homer Simpson! There's Homer Simpson!

I had the same thought as yours (more or less). This is just a geeky tech flourish that helps nearly nobody in a world starved for answers to critical questions. An example of how the insane amount of money we spend on death implements distracts bright people from useful endeavors.

Re:Laser guidance? Redux

[Anonymous Coward]

Someday they'll not only be small but pre-implanted in our heads at birth, right in the hospital, by law. That way later on if you're, you know, killing or robbing or demonstrating or something, and the police deem you to be a threat they can detonate them remotely using their iPads. There will be no danger to the authorities or other law-abiding citizens. Democracy, FTW!

Tired of the hype....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of the hype in the media created by non-shooters. For example, just because a rifle has a "range of two miles" doesn't mean you can hit anything. A friend of mine (now deceased) Skip Talbot who many long distance world records to his name (eg 5 shot group @ 1000 yards = 2.6 inches) found it challenging hitting a 12 foot tall rock that was 5 feet wide at two miles. In fact at two miles, a .50BMG's bullet is dropping at approximately a 45 degree angle. Even Skip's world record shots involved his showing up days before a match and taking notes on what happened to the wind flags (every 50 yards) throughout the day. Even there Skip had a whole mini weather station strapped to his shooting bench. By comparison a very good championship shooter would expect a group of 3-4 feet across. (That is what I was getting and I'd place about 1/3 down at the world championships.)

The point being, the shots that you see in the movies can be made but only by world-record class shooters only under very specialized conditions. (Known distances, known wind conditions, and on a range with which they have lots of experience, etc, etc, etc....) Beyond that is skill and a bunch of luck.

Re:Tired of the hype....

[ChrisMaple]

Very interesting. It sounds like increased velocity would be a substantial help for extreme long distance accuracy and repeatability, more so than fancy compensation for barrel changes.

Smart Bullet - Predator Object Tracking System

[Anonymous Coward]

A bullet that, when fired, acquires an image of the target and pursues it. Kind of like the Predator Object Tracking System(POTS) that got so much press here three weeks ago. POTS would be excellent for riflery, since the object image need be consistent for, at most, two seconds.

Re:A lunch

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to do it, at least learn to fucking spell.

on the other hand...

[Vitriol Angst]

It makes death much easier.

Well, maybe this is just a SLIGHT improvement -- but eventually, improvements are made, and I'd like to throw a blanket on this weapons love by pointing out that the MOST decorated military man in U.S. history, General Smedley Butler, after a life-time of glorious bloodshed for the US of A, claimed that; "War is a racket." There is no "defense" going on -- merely an expansion of an empire. Is it safe to leave Japan and Germany yet with our troops? Yeah, that's an empire. Everything is fine as long as everyone is singing from the same hymnal. And really, the same Multinationals that we do wet-work for, are influencing the countries with our military bases. Our Military and Nukes are what gives today's Dollar its value; not bonds, not the ability to pay the money back, not assets, no oil -- nope, it's the military's ability to Fuck Up any country that doesn't play ball. Every company on the ENEMY list doesn't work with the World Bank. The CIA isn't protecting US interests anymore when it kills a leader in a nation that doesn't let in US companies -- it's now killing those leaders to let in Multinationals from the "US" Chamber of Commerce. So, instead of some fat cat's bank account in the US -- it now goes to some fat cat's bank account offshore. I know, not much difference really.

Unless this is for a Video Game -- I'm not sure we need more "convenience." Say, you are sitting in the bunker, sipping your morning cup of Joe, and the sniper rifle alerts you it has a target. So, you get up, and look through the lens, sure enough, there is someone Arab-looking with a CASIO watch -- BLAM * BLAM -- one terrorist suspect less on the planet. It bothers me the way guided drones bother me; someone working 9-5 in some bunker in Langley Virginia who scored high marks on Video Games and is now blowing up impediments to resource acquisition from 10,000 miles away. Probably also sipping coffee and high-fiving on good targets. If they get someone's soccer game accidentally, there is probably a moment of silence and some knowing looks of "I feel you bro" and then on with the next target. The RISK is so low, that the folks doing the convenient killing, are never going to get PTSDs, and as long as it doesn't make the news or the balance sheets -- the war, for most Americans, isn't going on.

When robots take over -- we might not even know we are AT war, or if some snippy group of protesters wasn't just taken out.

Buy you get home after 5 tours of duty, to find you don't have a job. Because it turns out that you weren't promoting freedom via sniping but taking out people who might get in the way of some multinational Oil company. And rubbing salt into the wounds -- America doesn't get FREE OIL -- they buy it on the open market like everyone else. And the "COST SAVINGS" are about 80-90% for the Oil company -- those DON'T get passed onto you. Nope, Futures contracts and hedge funds make sure there is as much scarcity to drive up the cost as the market will bare.

If you want to bid on some of that "free market" land to put up an oil well, expect to receive 10-20 years in a Federal Prison as a potential Eco-Terrorist (no kidding).

>> I didn't read the article, nor the specs on the gun -- I'm merely hoping this is for SOCOM 4 or something.

People underestimate the forces involved.

[jvonk]

I am surprised that no one else commented about the extreme rotational forces involved in rifle bullets.

Take, for example, the M855 ball round used in most US M4's. It has a muzzle velocity of 3025 feet per second. A standard M4 barrel has a 1 in 7 inch twist, meaning the bullet completes a full rotation every 7 inches. Simple stoichiometry follows: 3025 feet/sec * 60 sec/min * 12 inches/1 foot * 1 rotation/7 inches = 311,142 rpm.

Remember those old videos of CD's exploding when they are rotated too fast, even when they are wrapped with wires to increase their tensile strength? Same applies here. As a matter of fact, this is used as a design feature: ball ammunition is designed to "tumble" end over end when it hits flesh which pushes the centrifugal forces on the bullet over the tensile strength of the bullet's jacket. This causes the bullet to fragment into tiny particles in the flesh, which results in the full force of the kinetic energy being deposited into the target.

Anyway, while the MEMS approach might be feasible from a size perspective, imagine the forces operating on one of these fins and the energy required to move any given fin even a tiny amount when it is feeling the pressures involved while moving through a fluid at 311 krpm. Now imagine what kind of materials would be necessary to implement this without the fin deforming or the armature of the fin simply shearing off.

These are cool ideas, but I think the physics & materials science aren't there.

Re:People underestimate the forces involved.

[a_hanso]

The best way to build a guided bullet, methinks, is to build an unpowered projectile with with microscopic steering surfaces on the exterior, with a very simple built in circuit that does nothing more than correcting to stay inside a laser guidance beam that's painting the target. Remote guidance is a bad idea (because light speed limitation becomes non-trivial at the time frames considered). It may even be theoretically possible to build an electromechanical (i.e. non-electronic) system that changes aerodynamic properties the moment a part of the projectile strays outside the guide beam. The only problem is, can any such system respond fast enough to make a meaningful correction within a bullet's short flight time? Perhaps we can make the bullet slower -- provided we can correct for gravity, we can sacrifice speed in favor of accuracy.

Re:People underestimate the forces involved.

[jvonk]

The best way to build a guided bullet, methinks, is to build an unpowered projectile with with microscopic steering surfaces on the exterior

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? It's unpowered... but has the power to move steering surfaces? Also, what would these surfaces look like if they aren't fins?

with a very simple built in circuit that does nothing more than correcting to stay inside a laser guidance beam that's painting the target.

Have you taken physics? Bullets follow a ballistic trajectory. If you are suggesting that the unpowered bullet somehow selectively deform its exterior so it forms an airfoil of one type or another, please recall that any active point on the exterior will have to have to deform/relax at 311 KHz in order to create a stable form as presented to the fixed frame of reference. Also note that this approach would likely defeat the whole point of rifling in the first place, which is gyroscopic stabilization. Said stabilization is also going to fight against any steering attempts (cf. angular momentum).

(because light speed limitation becomes non-trivial at the time frames considered)

Uh, okay... no, that's not a concern. Let's say the bullet is aimed at a target 100 m away. That's 333 nanoseconds away by light speed. Ignoring the fact that bullets slow down from drag, even at the terminal distance, there is time for 303,150 messages to be sent. The larger problem would be processing & reacting to this in your unpowered bullet, not to mention the materials science.

While designing all these modifications to the bullet's interior and exterior, don't forget that the round has to have adequate penetrating power and terminal ballistics. If it's an antimateriel round, then it needs to have a large, dense, pointed solid mass coaxially located in the center of the bullet. If it's antipersonnel, then it can & should fragment upon tumbling and create an adequately-sized wound channel (as measured via both temporary and permanent characteristics). In either case, the round should have adequate penetrating power so that it doesn't disintegrate upon striking something like auto glass. So, whatever you pack into the round can't deleteriously affect these characteristics or the whole exercise becomes pointless.

Perhaps we can make the bullet slower -- provided we can correct for gravity, we can sacrifice speed in favor of accuracy.

That's already been taken to its logic & feasible conclusion.

In summary, I think the whole idea is untenable. That was the point of my post above.

Re:People underestimate the forces involved.

[a_hanso]

By unpowered, I mean un-propelled, otherwise it would be a micro missile, not a bullet. Power is clearly required for actuators -- I thought that would be obvious enough. "Fins" are not suitable for minor course corrections at such speeds, not to mention the drag stress on them. As you suggested, one can use MEMS for tiny surface deformations. Please note that gyroscopic stabilization does not require that the *entire* projectile rotate as a unit. As for remote guidance, what is important is the time difference between two consecutive corrections, which is longer than 333ns since we have to account for processing & sensing latency at either end. But I suppose it could be done. And yes, I did take physics (and engineering). There is no need to become argumentative.

Re:People underestimate the forces involved.

[jvonk]

There is no need to become argumentative.

Heh. Well, I thought my posted response was more measured than my initial "WTF?" response based on the apparent lack of understanding of the natural ballistic arc of the bullet's trajectory. Attempting to force a bullet to fly a straight line via some MEMS-based airfoil (even if it were feasible) would rob the bullet of kinetic energy by slowing it down. Bullets' efficacy is directly proportional to the kinetic energy deposited into the target (and the correct amount of penetration [not over or under]), so this would be a deleterious effect.

Power is clearly required for actuators

What is your proposed power source? Whatever it is must be highly stable (being able to last for years in storage without degrading) and must also be highly reliable after that that time in extreme conditions of pressure, temperature, and acceleration (naturally, we can ignore terminal deceleration, heh). The entire cartridge system must be very tolerant of the rigors and abuse that would be encountered in combat (shock, dirt/sand/dust, moisture, etc).

I thought that would be obvious enough.

I didn't assume anything after I read "light speed limitation becomes non-trivial at the time frames considered", when it clearly is a non-issue.

As for remote guidance, what is important is the time difference between two consecutive corrections, which is longer than 333ns since we have to account for processing & sensing latency at either end.

Sure, but that's not what you said. Had you said something about that kind of latency it would have been more plausible. Furthermore, let's agree that the ~0.1 second flight time of the bullet to 100m is a relative eternity when it comes to simple signal communication and processing. I was much more concerned about the ability of the proposed MEMS deformations/relaxations to be able to effect the desired outcome given the >300 KHz rate required for the rifled bullet (and the power demands thereof), even if the materials science were available for this.

Please note that gyroscopic stabilization does not require that the *entire* projectile rotate as a unit.

That is correct, but are you familiar with how a rifle barrel works to impart the gyroscopic stabilization of the bullet? If you are suggesting eliminating the gyroscopic stabilization, your proposed projectile will have more trouble maintaining course with crosswinds and will suffer in its terminal ballistic performance (eg. tumbling/fragmentation).

All the stuff you are proposing to pack into the bullet is changing its composition. Center of mass is important, because rifle bullets already tend to flip and fly "end first" after they traverse longer distances (overturning moment [cool site, btw]). This is Bad and renders the bullet significantly less effective. Note that this effect would be significantly worse in the absence of spin stabilization and in that case the bullet would tend to tumble right after it emerged from the (smooth bore) barrel, again seriously diminishing its efficacy.

Again, cool idea, but I doubt it would work beyond serving as a plot element in a Stargate fanfic or something. Cheers!

PS. Fun, if unrelated fact: the M1 Abrams tank 120 mm main gun is smooth bore. Stabilization is imparted to APFSDS rounds via passive fins on the kinetic penetrator dart. The aerodynamics of an arrow-like dart (and the use cases for APFSDS rounds) is, of course, completely different than any kind of regular bullet.

The difference between accuracy and precision

[Dunbal]

Great, now friendly fire will be so much more precise.

MW3 perk!

[blingdog19]

Cant wait till this is added as a perk in the new COD game and all the fanboys can pretend to know everything about it. /sarcasm

"Lifesaving"

[Mike610544]

The lifesaving results are lethal.

Does that only apply if you're destroying a village to save it? or maybe if you're in a war with Eastasia or Eurasia?

This is a non-issue for small arms

[BobandMax]

Environmental factors, notably wind, are a much larger factor than barrel perturbations. Modern, precision rifle barrels virtually do not move when heated to the extent of a sniper's fire rate. The much more significant development is the previously reported Lockheed DARPA contract for a wind-detecting Laser sight that superimposes a true aiming point into the field of view. I have made many first-round hits on targets of interest to 1600 meters using old-fashioned experience, estimating wind effect. The Lockheed sight would greatly reduce the possible environmental error.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/052610_LM_DARPA_rifle-scope.html

Systems similar to the Oak Ridge development already exists on long-range tank guns, correcting for the sun's heating, and subsequent bending, of the gun barrel.

Remember with who you are dealing

[Anonymous Coward]

but you'll also run into the problem of the cost/benefit ratio.

One shot - one kill. If that can be assured when the round leaves the barrel, then no amount of expense will be spared. Having served two decades in the US Army and having intimate exposure to sniper units, I can assure you cost will not be a negative factor in the development of this weapon.

Why bother with a rifle?

[thesandtiger]

I mean, why bother with a rifle in the traditional form factor, instead of fully leveraging technology to make extremely accurate devices that ANYONE could use, without having to be a highly trained sniper?

Use a laser to find the range, use the system from TFA to compensate for defects, there might even be a way to figure out wind patterns along the path of the bullet, etc. Then, instead of having to have someone trained to squeeze rather than yank and hold their breath and wait between heartbeats have someone with a little box hooked up to the gun (not touching it, of course), fire the shot.

Maybe it would be a case of "too many things can go wrong" or maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I guess I just don't understand why they don't issue teams kits like this so that suddenly everyone could be a sniper.

(I'm completely ignoring the moral issues of further distancing an actual human from the taking of another human life, of course. Not only do I believe they aren't a factor here, I think it's pretty improbable that the people who work on tech for snipers to use are particularly worried about the morality of what they do since they're already well into the "kill people" mode of thinking and just want to make that process as efficient and effective as possible)

From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

"The lifesaving results are lethal."

Come again?

Does this increase the range?

[Vrtigo1]

It seems to me that if a human can correct for these variables out to a distance of two miles using only his eyes and brain, then if a computer with purpose built sensors is added to the equation, we ought to start seeing snipers making kills out to 4 or 5 miles now. I'm sure the Barret 50 cal has a lethal range farther out than that at which a human can currently successfully hit a target.