Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Drive)   Aimbots, which will get you banned from online shooter games, are now unlocked for US Special Operators in Syria. Fark: it's called SMASH 2000   (thedrive.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, United States Army, advanced optical sighting system, special operators, United States armed forces, smart sight, Smart Shooter SMASH, Small arms, Assault rifle  
•       •       •

1057 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jun 2020 at 6:42 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-02 1:48:49 AM  
I'd buy that for a dollar
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2020-06-02 2:01:26 AM  
Up the caliber to 50 BMG or 338 Lapua. Get rid of the human shooter entirely. Replace him with a fast, accurate servo aiming system. The operator simply designates the target. The gun automatically identifies the target, corrects for everything from the ammunition lot to the weather, aims, and fires. In milliseconds. Now that is a gun.

Something like this:

"Aliens" Sentry Guns Scenes
Youtube HQDy-5IQvuU
 
2020-06-02 3:18:42 AM  
How do you say "omg wtf haxor" in Arabic?
 
2020-06-02 5:05:41 AM  

fusillade762: How do you say "omg wtf haxor" in Arabic?


I dunno but in Hindi you just respawn.
 
2020-06-02 5:15:15 AM  
In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.
 
2020-06-02 7:24:40 AM  

derpes_simplex: In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.


They said the same thing about computing gun sights in fighter aircraft, stabilizers for tanks, and semi-auto rifles in WW2. If one marksman per squad has this and it works... If it brings up accuracy for grunts up even five percent, it's huge.
 
2020-06-02 7:27:30 AM  

iToad: Up the caliber to 50 BMG or 338 Lapua. Get rid of the human shooter entirely. Replace him with a fast, accurate servo aiming system. The operator simply designates the target. The gun automatically identifies the target, corrects for everything from the ammunition lot to the weather, aims, and fires. In milliseconds. Now that is a gun.

Watch fewer movies, read more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CROWS
 
2020-06-02 7:53:58 AM  
Coming soon to a failed democracy you live in.
 
2020-06-02 8:01:15 AM  

Bluenosed Baker: derpes_simplex: In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.

They said the same thing about computing gun sights in fighter aircraft, stabilizers for tanks, and semi-auto rifles in WW2. If one marksman per squad has this and it works... If it brings up accuracy for grunts up even five percent, it's huge.


Smarted.

I've got another one:  Optical sights.  For a long time, they were considered to be too fragile and were limited to just specialized sniper/designated marksman weapons, but now they have become tough enough and reliable enough that they are installed on common grunt firearms.

Technology moves on.   As long as there is a back-up where you can use the firearm without the fancy aimbot system, like having conventional iron sights still available, I see no reason why it shouldn't be at least tried.  If this iteration of it is found to be lacking in some way, the next iteration will almost certain fix those flaws.

Eventually this will end up being shrunk, ruggedized even more, and it will start showing up on common soldiers rifles.
 
2020-06-02 8:18:49 AM  

derpes_simplex: In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.


Fark user imageView Full Size

They're called ballistic calculators and military snipers all use them. Don't talk shiat if you don't know shiat.
 
2020-06-02 8:25:10 AM  

albuquerquehalsey: derpes_simplex: In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.

[Fark user image image 600x478]
They're called ballistic calculators and military snipers all use them. Don't talk shiat if you don't know shiat.


Then nobody would post on fark.
 
2020-06-02 8:47:36 AM  

dittybopper: Eventually this will end up being shrunk, ruggedized even more, and it will start showing up on common soldiers rifles.


I first heard about something like this being used so that rifleman can engage drones.  Spotting a target in the sky with radar is relatively simple compared to sensing a human target in the ground clutter.
Even if its just providing ranging and windage tho, that is going to greatly improve first shot accuracy and further transform infantry combat.
One more step towards wars being far too dangerous for unarmored human combatants.
 
2020-06-02 9:03:18 AM  

way south: dittybopper: Eventually this will end up being shrunk, ruggedized even more, and it will start showing up on common soldiers rifles.

I first heard about something like this being used so that rifleman can engage drones.  Spotting a target in the sky with radar is relatively simple compared to sensing a human target in the ground clutter.
Even if its just providing ranging and windage tho, that is going to greatly improve first shot accuracy and further transform infantry combat.
One more step towards wars being far too dangerous for unarmored human combatants.


I'm not gonna go all "if it doesn't work in every case its useless" train, but I am skeptical of the notion of wars being too dangerous for unarmored combatants at least until sometime around the foundation of the United Federation of Earth.  It's been so many times in history, accelerating in the 20th-21st centuries that such a hypothesis is floated and yet all that the arrogance of technology ever really serves is to humble its weilders at the hand of unarmored folks hiding in jungles, caves, and population centers.  No good weapon will ever make up for bad tactics and bad wars but good weapons fool people into thinking so.
 
2020-06-02 9:17:44 AM  
Has anyone said it will be broken by the first private who touches it? Yes? OK then...
 
2020-06-02 9:25:14 AM  

006andahalf: way south: dittybopper: Eventually this will end up being shrunk, ruggedized even more, and it will start showing up on common soldiers rifles.

I first heard about something like this being used so that rifleman can engage drones.  Spotting a target in the sky with radar is relatively simple compared to sensing a human target in the ground clutter.
Even if its just providing ranging and windage tho, that is going to greatly improve first shot accuracy and further transform infantry combat.
One more step towards wars being far too dangerous for unarmored human combatants.

I'm not gonna go all "if it doesn't work in every case its useless" train, but I am skeptical of the notion of wars being too dangerous for unarmored combatants at least until sometime around the foundation of the United Federation of Earth.  It's been so many times in history, accelerating in the 20th-21st centuries that such a hypothesis is floated and yet all that the arrogance of technology ever really serves is to humble its weilders at the hand of unarmored folks hiding in jungles, caves, and population centers.  No good weapon will ever make up for bad tactics and bad wars but good weapons fool people into thinking so.



Except now, we can basically build primitive terminators.

You can combine the basic technology of paintball/airsoft sentry guns with real guns, and put them on autonomous robots, and simply tell them "weapons free".

Remember Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines?

i.ytimg.comView Full Size


We can build the functional equivalent of a T-1 Terminator *NOW*.

We are rapidly approaching the point where we need not risk human lives on the battlefield.   We're not *QUITE* there yet, but unlike in the past, its something that's actually within the available technology.

And God help us when that happens.

One of the things that restrains the use of military force by democratic nations is that the public doesn't like their loved ones coming home in body bags.  It's not a *PERFECT* restraint, but is is there.  One of the reasons why we're probably still in Afghanistan is that the casualty figures are very low.  Major US involvement in the Vietnam War lasted for something like 10 years, from 1963 to 1973.  We lost over 58,000 killed.

We've been in Afghanistan for almost 19 years now, and we've only suffered 2,420 KIA.  Part of that is due to better medical care for wounded soldiers, part due to the smaller nature of the war and the fact that there aren't any superpowers supplying our opponents, but part is also due to the US using technologies like drones that only places equipment and not people at risk.

I can envision a future where the cost of going to war is perceived to be very minimal by the public because we won't have any significant "skin in the game".    All we stand to lose would be some machines, but that's not a bad thing because that will keep the people building them employed.

So instead of politicians stopping and considering "Is this really worth it?  Is the cost likely to be too high?", it will just be seen as a low-cost decision.

And that's when we'll start having issues with more and more little wars.   Things that wouldn't have warranted a military response in the past because on balance it might cost us more than it's worth will now have a military response be one of the first things considered, because the potential political cost will be very low, or even non-existent.
 
2020-06-02 9:27:06 AM  

006andahalf: way south: dittybopper: Eventually this will end up being shrunk, ruggedized even more, and it will start showing up on common soldiers rifles.

I first heard about something like this being used so that rifleman can engage drones.  Spotting a target in the sky with radar is relatively simple compared to sensing a human target in the ground clutter.
Even if its just providing ranging and windage tho, that is going to greatly improve first shot accuracy and further transform infantry combat.
One more step towards wars being far too dangerous for unarmored human combatants.

I'm not gonna go all "if it doesn't work in every case its useless" train, but I am skeptical of the notion of wars being too dangerous for unarmored combatants at least until sometime around the foundation of the United Federation of Earth.  It's been so many times in history, accelerating in the 20th-21st centuries that such a hypothesis is floated and yet all that the arrogance of technology ever really serves is to humble its weilders at the hand of unarmored folks hiding in jungles, caves, and population centers.  No good weapon will ever make up for bad tactics and bad wars but good weapons fool people into thinking so.


I think we actually blew past the point somewhere around WWI, but we couldn't find a proper replacement for infantry.  You're in a situation where one artillery piece could level a city and there wasn't much soldier could do about it until the tank came along to provide some protection.
What we have now is machines to deal with the other machines and create a small zone where you can survive on foot.  Either that or you have to be in a war where the enemy isn't using the same machines we do. When they try to walk in the open, they die almost instantly.

The machines are getting smaller and cheaper.  One of these days we're going to wake up to a sky where drone-grenades are swarming like mosquitoes and there will be no leaving the tank if you expect to live. Even a handful of such a weapon can be a big problem.   Here we needed a new sighting system just to have a fighting chance against one or two.

How does someone go outside and not get torn to shreds in such a war?
You'll need a small machine that can go where you go and provide a bubble of protection. If you had such a machine then its a question of whether we should send the soldier in the first place.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-02 9:27:38 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Has anyone said it will be broken by the first private who touches it? Yes? OK then...


You sound very knowledgeable about touching privates.
 
2020-06-02 9:50:27 AM  

dittybopper: Bluenosed Baker: derpes_simplex: In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.

They said the same thing about computing gun sights in fighter aircraft, stabilizers for tanks, and semi-auto rifles in WW2. If one marksman per squad has this and it works... If it brings up accuracy for grunts up even five percent, it's huge.

Smarted.

I've got another one:  Optical sights.  For a long time, they were considered to be too fragile and were limited to just specialized sniper/designated marksman weapons, but now they have become tough enough and reliable enough that they are installed on common grunt firearms.

Technology moves on.   As long as there is a back-up where you can use the firearm without the fancy aimbot system, like having conventional iron sights still available, I see no reason why it shouldn't be at least tried.  If this iteration of it is found to be lacking in some way, the next iteration will almost certain fix those flaws.

Eventually this will end up being shrunk, ruggedized even more, and it will start showing up on common soldiers rifles.


This tech reminds me of the last few gyro sights in the F 86. It had a small radome above the intake in the nose, if you dialed it in right, when you pulled the trigger the target crosses the aligned beam and the weapons went off. It was brilliant.
 
2020-06-02 10:31:40 AM  

iToad: Up the caliber to 50 BMG or 338 Lapua. Get rid of the human shooter entirely. Replace him with a fast, accurate servo aiming system. The operator simply designates the target. The gun automatically identifies the target, corrects for everything from the ammunition lot to the weather, aims, and fires. In milliseconds. Now that is a gun.

Something like this:

[YouTube video: "Aliens" Sentry Guns Scenes]


This probably works better:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-02 11:37:10 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Has anyone said it will be broken by the first private who touches it? Yes? OK then...


Then stop touching your privates
 
2020-06-02 11:56:58 AM  

way south: 006andahalf: way south: dittybopper: Eventually this will end up being shrunk, ruggedized even more, and it will start showing up on common soldiers rifles.

I first heard about something like this being used so that rifleman can engage drones.  Spotting a target in the sky with radar is relatively simple compared to sensing a human target in the ground clutter.
Even if its just providing ranging and windage tho, that is going to greatly improve first shot accuracy and further transform infantry combat.
One more step towards wars being far too dangerous for unarmored human combatants.

I'm not gonna go all "if it doesn't work in every case its useless" train, but I am skeptical of the notion of wars being too dangerous for unarmored combatants at least until sometime around the foundation of the United Federation of Earth.  It's been so many times in history, accelerating in the 20th-21st centuries that such a hypothesis is floated and yet all that the arrogance of technology ever really serves is to humble its weilders at the hand of unarmored folks hiding in jungles, caves, and population centers.  No good weapon will ever make up for bad tactics and bad wars but good weapons fool people into thinking so.

I think we actually blew past the point somewhere around WWI, but we couldn't find a proper replacement for infantry.  You're in a situation where one artillery piece could level a city and there wasn't much soldier could do about it until the tank came along to provide some protection.
What we have now is machines to deal with the other machines and create a small zone where you can survive on foot.  Either that or you have to be in a war where the enemy isn't using the same machines we do. When they try to walk in the open, they die almost instantly.

The machines are getting smaller and cheaper.  One of these days we're going to wake up to a sky where drone-grenades are swarming like mosquitoes and there will be no leaving the tank if you expect to live. Even a handful of such a weapon can be a big problem.   Here we needed a new sighting system just to have a fighting chance against one or two.

How does someone go outside and not get torn to shreds in such a war?
You'll need a small machine that can go where you go and provide a bubble of protection. If you had such a machine then its a question of whether we should send the soldier in the first place.

[Fark user image image 624x351]


Regardless of the weapon used, I think that the Clausewitzian maxim of wars being politics by other means has a transitive property.  What this reminds us is that no matter the technology humans make the decision to war or not (absenting Skynet for the moment).  So to make successful warfare it must credibly convince the opponent to strike a mutually-acceptable deal.  Remote rock-em sock-em robots won't do that so other means of applying/inflicting pressure/pain will get devised as contenders seek advantage.  So if war is too dangerous for soldiers, then non-soldier persons will be made into combatants.  In this sense, technologies to make battlefields too dangerous for fighting will make everywhere else a battlefield and the ramifications of that can be horrifying.  This has aleady been happening.  The answer isn't a reversion to people staring at one another across a field but a recognition of this likelihood by those who would dismiss the inevitable hazards of warfare.
No war but maybe one has featured such an overwhelming technical advantage that that advantage on its own smothered the enemy's will or ability to fight.  That exception is the European-Indian wars, which in might as well have been a war of extermination.
 
2020-06-02 12:28:38 PM  

derpes_simplex: In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.


And they are fitting it to the M4. It's a sawed off M16, not known for accuracy.
 
2020-06-02 1:10:47 PM  

006andahalf: No war but maybe one has featured such an overwhelming technical advantage that that advantage on its own smothered the enemy's will or ability to fight. That exception is the European-Indian wars, which in might as well have been a war of extermination.


If you're referring to American Indians, the technological advantage wouldn't have been enough to win if 80-90% of the enemy population hadn't died from smallpox.  Your point stands.

I think the Anglo-Zulu war is a better example of an exception to your point.
 
2020-06-02 1:14:53 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: derpes_simplex: In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.

And they are fitting it to the M4. It's a sawed off M16, not known for accuracy.


Minimum acceptable standard for accuracy for the M4 is 4 MOA.  That means that at 100 yards, any shot fired will land within 2 inches of the aim point for a total group size of 4 inches at 100 yards*

A human torso is roughly 20 inches by 12 inches, so a "worst of the bunch" M4 can still be expected to hit a person if it's aimed center-of-mass at 300 yards (12" / 4 MOA = 3, or 300 yards).

Then you have the people who can just barely shoot.  I think roughly half of my Basic training platoon never shot better than marksman, another third shot sharpshooter, and the rest of us shot expert.  As an interesting side note, the drill instructors said that "city boys" end up as better shooters because they don't have bad habits to unlearn, unlike us country boys.  But who were all the high sharpshooter and experts?  With just one or two exceptions, country boys who grew up shooting.

Anyway, putting the ability to make one shot hits into the hands of mediocre marksmen is going to be a game changer.  When all your trigger pullers are like Carlos Hathcock up to the range limitations of their weapon, they are going to have a major qualitative advantage over an adversary who is using simple iron sights.


*Yes, MOA is actually slightly different, but it's close enough.
 
db2
2020-06-02 1:40:04 PM  
No items, Fox only, Final Destination.
 
2020-06-02 1:49:38 PM  

albuquerquehalsey: derpes_simplex: In all seriousness, this sounds stupid.  What's the intended use case?  A skilled sniper doesn't want this crap and a grunt will break it.

[Fark user image 600x478]
They're called ballistic calculators and military snipers all use them. Don't talk shiat if you don't know shiat.


Because a handheld device is totally the same as something integrated into the hardware of the weapon.  And I'm the one who 'don't know shiat'.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.