Could smart guns decrease training costs for operators?

I was reading up on some advanced tactical gear and ran across these smart weapons that are coming out. The idea is that an armed force can produce accurate shooters by spending a bit more for the weapons than they spend on training operators. I recalled when I was being trained that the money spent on producing great shooters was not insignificant. Now there are technology solutions that can cut way down on these training costs by making the guns smarter. Here is one example system..



www.tracking-point.com...


I find the technology used in these scopes and rifle systems very interesting. I myself was initially trained with iron sights and did not get into optics systems until much later in my training. There are other systems out there. I just provide the one for reference purposes. The integration of firing computers with sensors and high resolution video is a compelling reason to adopt these smart optics I think that is clear. Price point is the tough part for civilian use but for military and police use it makes a lot of sense to spend a bit more on the weapon system and less on training for a force level deployment.

a reply to: machineintelligence

But that's the problem with the military today. Too high a reliance on technology. If anything you would want to keep up the fundamentals, iron sights etc and then only spend money on these for special combat teams.

I remember in our Army orienteering course I had to lead the squad because they barely understood the basic compass skills, and I had already learnt it all in Scouts.

When a GPS goes down I wanna see who is lost in the desert/woods.

When this weapons system fails I wanna see who can hit the barn with no technology.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Those are all very well and good.

But what happens when, not if, but when, they break?? That's a given.

Nothing will ever replace, practice, practice, and more practice. Muscle memory will get you through when you're scared, when you're tired, when you're scared and tired.

Don't get me wrong, those doo-dads, and whiz bang super-scopes are very, very cool. Did I mention cool?? ...and I'd love to have a couple of 'em. But I'd never use 'em to replace practice, and range time.

a reply to: chris_stibrany

Exactly.

Having 'em is nice, but an over reliance on 'em could be catastrophic.

a reply to: machineintelligence
Sounds like an idea by a politician somehow. Save some dollars, that will end up costing more in lives down the road. I remember the thread on ATS years ago first discussing this system.
They were $20,000 then. I guess they finally got a little bit cheaper.
The old video from that thread.
A more recent promo video from two years ago.

a reply to: machineintelligence

All I have to say is that GPS wanted me to drive into a lake to get to a bookstore.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: machineintelligence

All I have to say is that GPS wanted me to drive into a lake to get to a bookstore.

'zactly

a reply to: worldstarcountry
I like the idea of my scope dope being loaded into the scope. Tracking a moving target is not an easy task given the amount of time it takes a round to travel to target. Automating that process knocks off lots of training for a deployed force. I never considered these things as a grunt but seeing how these factors can change a force level of accuracy made me consider this technology.

I believe it has huge potential. Initial costs may not always be most cost effective, however as with all technology prices equalize rapidly.

With more advanced training options comes opportunity for better techniques to be introduced. More tools in the box.

With more products available costs will come down to consumer levels for a MSRP.


Smart guns, used with either augmented reality and or airsoft/paintball could provide a cheaper way of training with out live fire costs.

However good the technology is, it can't compete with muscle memory and experience. It's an accessory not a replacement in my opinion. Based on three decades of real life experience. Every from semi pro paintball to active duty Army. My time spent behind a trigger be it duck hunt or Tippmann, I've developed the time to associate the equipment to experience.

Technology will need ai before it can replicate that.

I'm not against the concept, I love it as an engagement.

Those with the lack of skills required, need the smart technology to do it for them. Those who have that ability to shoot iron sights out to 300m or further, know what I say.

I want to see technology like smart guns, used to assist the skills being taught not a replacement for.

Image the abuse this stuff could potentially be involved in, especially when taking into account intentions of terrorists.

Do we really want this to be commercial off the shelf?

What point does the dial get turned back?

What happens to accountability when it gets abused?
Blame the individual or the whole, that's where I see it having any real drawback.

a reply to: ADVISOR

I am considering this on a force deployment level. The % of rounds expended over the heads of an opfor during an engagement is roundly calculated at about 80%. With real time video feedback combined with computer controlled firing solutions this should reduce this rate to the tiny percentile area. If an operator is firing high for instance command can adjust fire and engage with persons willing and able to better manage the encounter. The command gets better optics during an engagement as well as more reliable field data from the op.

EMP, battery dies in the field, scope takes a shot and fails, rifle jams with an unrecoverable failure, rifle takes a hit and no longer functions...

Just no. Train better marksmen. Not computers. A marksmen may one day determine his shot could save my life rather than a program that deems me an acceptable loss...

reply to: EternalSolace
I am thinking of this as a force multiplier. The army did not teach me to shoot my dad trained me for about a decade before I entered the service. I don't expect the armed services has a huge field of people trained like I was by virtue of being the son of a force recon Marine combat veteran. In the world you take what you have and make the most of it. These firing computer guns make people like me in many ways obsolete. Anyone can shoot with my level of skill if they can afford it using these systems. Certainly there is a down side including the items you mentioned. I am thinking at a force level this would allow a deployed element more effective fire with far less training. A higher hit to kill ratio for one and enough feedback built in to improve effective fire in any engagement.

a reply to: machineintelligence

i believe there is a saying on the folly of this

"those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

this thinking has been tried OVER AND OVER to predictable disaster.

lets look at vietnam for two clear examples.

one... removing guns and air to air combat training for missiles .

those "wiz kids" in the pentagon (imo smart #tards) thought having this new tech called air to air missiles would eliminate the need for guns on aircraft and eliminate close in dog fighting training.

because why would you need guns or training when you just pop off a missile that will hit them far away.

OPPS.... how many missiles failed to even get close and then the pilots had no backup... much less training to use it.

how many lives were lost until they put guns on them and then went back to basic air to air training (btw the reason for top gun school in navy)

two... the m-16

same brain trusts thought because of the powder they used , the "hi tech" of the manufacture , and the full auto.
you didnt need alot of marksmanship , chrome lined barrel or hell even a cleaning kit

well it was a JUNGLE environment (you know hot, wet, muggy, muddy) along with the powder was changed to a more dirty one.

the initial jams were so bad that even the VC (who used EVERYTHING to kill/ wound americans) would not even take them off the KIA americans.

they had to go back to basics.. cleaning kits (and how to use them), fire discipline skills , and redesign the m 16
they put back in BASIC items like chrome lined barrels and forward assist .

if that isnt recent warning enough how about those "tech marvel" ships the navy built that one computer crashed turned them into helpless no backup targets?

look tech AS AID is great.
but without the basics being taught and mastered ANYTHING that will go wrong (no matter how minor) will leave the soldier dead.

i must ask

how many times must we pay in blood to relearn the lessons of the past until we realize BASICS must ALWAYS be taught.

Scrounger

a reply to: machineintelligence

I was trained to shoot by a WW1 doughboy who was in the Trenches, later county sheriff--my granddad, and a WW2 GI/later Air Force veteran who helped face down Banzai charges on Saipan.

There is nothing wrong with this technology...save that technology breaks. It's inevitable, and also inevitable is that it'll break at the very worst time possible. Then you've only training, and hours on the range, and training grounds, to fall back on to prevent your death, and that of your fellow squaddies.

Whiz bang gadgetry has a place, but so, too, does training, and more training.

It used to be said of the Roman Legions and their training--Their training is like bloodless war, their wars are like bloody training. Or words to that effect.

This technology is not being designed for use by ground forces. That's how it be marketed, and beta tested.

But why would they need some schmuck who can't shoot, navigate, or survive with expensive logistical support.

They dont. They'll hang this unit on a uav or drone.

The old Marine that taught me how to shoot and navigate once told me-

"Better a first rate man with a third rate weapon, than the other way around".

a reply to: seagull

We are rare birds it seems. I remember back in the 80's training the Contras that many of these young men had never held a weapon. We had to start from scratch with many of them. I assume it is the same in many instances. When I was in basic and AIT in Ft Benning I was a member of Echo company 2nd battalion and we were about 80% prior service. I fit right in to that group. We beat every other company in every training exercise. Our riflemen were overwhelmingly firing expert as well.

I don't think training should be cut at cost or quality, even if you have a smart gun. Technology is not a replacement for good training and knowledge......

These would however be great systems that could be given to the population during a zombie apocalypse or inevitable alien invasion. Ironically one of the promo codes jokingly references fighting off aliens.

Sure would be helpful to get instant headshots on zombies though. I prefer my flesh to stay on my bones.

Technology breaks, Technology can be hijacked, technology is only as good as the people that programmed it.

A well trained soldier with a weapon that is closer to them than their own mother is an all weather, all locations killing machine.
maybe in several years sure, once we better understand security employee vetting etc... right now no.