Tracking Point - Guided rifle system allows precision shots to 1,200 yards

Its official. The next war will be won by gamers.

Do you have any fps experience? America wants you!

I've heard of this. Guided bullets. Anyone got any idea how it works? Probably little fins on the bullet and some kind of guidance system.

Firearm combat at close and medium ranges don't really require guided bullets, an assault rifle with a scope can hit targets easily at these ranges. Long and very long range combat with firearms is the area of the sniper and sharpshooter and this could make long range shots easier but you still have to see the target. This could make sniper fire from very long range much more effective and rapid.
We have guided missiles and bombs why not bullets. Inevitable really.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


Don't knock gamers man. Gaming can improve your hand eye co-ordination and improve your reaction time. Try it sometime and you'll see how fast you can improve your skills. The military uses computer sims because they work.

For automation, this is more what comes to mind, actually...



It gets downright rude if that's coupled with 1,200 yard shooting accuracy. lol...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
For automation, this is more what comes to mind, actually...

It gets downright rude if that's coupled with 1,200 yard shooting accuracy. lol...

Actually it probably goes even further.

The rifle will be mounted on an armoured robot thumping through the countryside controlled by somebody in a trailer somewhere else.

System management will be the skill that replaces the original rifle handling.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

lol i'm fine with this being brought out
if the right resonant frequency is applied the gunpowder or cordite or whatever wont combust/detonate.

If gunpowder *had* a "resonant frequency". Which it doesn't.

By the way all those remotely controlled rifles, even mounted on a UAV, is really old news. I heard about it a long time ago.

This is just one link.

The autonomous Rotorcraft Sniper System (ARSS) is based on the Vigilante 502 unmanned helicopter which is a much modified version of the commercially available Ultrasport 496 which is an ultralight class kit helicopter. Powered by a 115 hp 4 cylinder turbocharged Rotax engine the 1,100 pounds (500kg) UAV can fly at 117 knots (135 mph / 216 kph) for up to 9 hours with a ceiling of 13,000 feet (4,000 m). The Vigilante can carry up to 380 lb (172 kg) of payload which is enough for a medium caliber machine gun, a shotgun or in this case a sniper gun. The autopilot is based on a 266Mhz Pentium PC-104 industrial computer that gets it bearings using GPS, radar altimeter and magnetometer. Communication with the ground is via RF digital modems at 115kbps and has a 20 mile range.

Mounted onto this UAV is a lightweight gun turret developed by Space Dynamics Laboratory. The turret carries a .338 Lapua Magnum rifle and a situational awareness camera plus a scope with cameras attached that provides two levels of zoom. Control of the rifle is via a laptop computer with a Xbox 360 gaming controller used for aiming and firing.

Pretty cool, actually!

Originally posted by projectvxn
I would use this product for sure. Especially for aerial gunnery. It is not an easy thing to do to shoot from a UH60. Trust me. A tool like this would be a huge benefit.

What you want to bet they picked another battery you aren't already packing? For some reason, EEEEEVERY contractor wants to use yet another battery you don't have. Before long, you'll have a Battery Sergeant with a friggin' ALICE full of fifty different non-compatible cells.

reply to post by Bedlam


Wouldn't surprise me.

For as much as the Army talks about standardization there seems to be very little of it when it comes to equipment.

Meh, I'm still waiting on Orbital Particle Beam Strike for consumers available soon @ a Walmart near you!

Originally posted by totallackey
The fact you are bemoaning only the lack of skill necessary to operate the weapon successfully causes me great concern. Why not bemoan the fact we as humans still find it necessary to kill each other?

As a kid that was forced to spend 5-10 hours a day on weekends in the range preparing for shooting competitions, this bothers me a little too.

I supposed I would have got slapped upside the head less if I had this system.



In any case, I gave up shooting after moving out on my own. So it really doesn't effect me anymore.

On a positive note, using this for hunting (if your target is still) could reduce the amount of injured non kills. And also in a military aspect, there are some people with other skills beneficial to snipers, but haven't mastered marksmanship. So that too could be a plus.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Control of the rifle is via a laptop computer with a Xbox 360 gaming controller used for aiming and firing.

How about a fiction series where people are buying video games systems that are secretly linked into robotic war machines fighting real war half a globe away?

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by buddhasystem

Control of the rifle is via a laptop computer with a Xbox 360 gaming controller used for aiming and firing.

 

How about a fiction series where people are buying video games systems that are secretly linked into robotic war machines fighting real war half a globe away?

I hope they don't make that movie into a lump of crap. But I suspect they will. Having 10 year olds kill other 10 year olds probably won't fly.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

 

Don't knock gamers man. Gaming can improve your hand eye co-ordination and improve your reaction time. Try it sometime and you'll see how fast you can improve your skills. The military uses computer sims because they work.

me? I am one! And yes its true and Im also ex mil... I wasnt knockin anyone, that was not sarcasm hehe

reply to post by Bedlam

I hope they don't make that movie into a lump of crap. But I suspect they will. Having 10 year olds kill other 10 year olds probably won't fly.

Actually, it' starting to sound like the plot to "Gamer".



On topic, consumer use of this tech will be interesting. I wonder if it's going to affect shooting sports at all?

reply to post by buddhasystem


It;s the human element that's being replaced by technology.. What once required patience, skills, training, reflexes, strength etc have been trumped by technology.
Mounting this specific sighting system on a drone certainly is not "topic creep", more than likely it will happen soon.
I wrote thread, if you don't like where I go with it you're not under any obligation to respond.

The implications of technological development are germane to the topic.
Unless you believe ethics and science have no bearing on each other.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There's something fundamentally wrong with making war and killing so easy and robotic. No need to convince people to go to war for a cause - if you have the equipment you just do it!
Like the drones over in pakistan and yemen,
Those people over there must think the US is biggest bunch of chicken-squat sissies to ever walk the earth.
Home of the Brave. - yeah, sure we are.

We took a major wrong turn somewhere and people's blind faith in science is leading the charge.

That's a bit harsh. Would you say then that a telescopic sight makes anyone able to hit a target that real marksmen wouldn't need? After all before they came out the same argument you propose here could have applied to that technology back then!

Originally posted by pacifier2012
That's a bit harsh. Would you say then that a telescopic sight makes anyone able to hit a target that real marksmen wouldn't need? After all before they came out the same argument you propose here could have applied to that technology back then!

Right on. I can tell you from experience that it's a lot of easier to hit the target with a scope rather than iron sights, everyone knows that, I suppose.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

There's something fundamentally wrong with making war and killing so easy and robotic.

IMHO there is something fundamentally wrong with making war and killing, period. The rest is simply irrelevant.

We took a major wrong turn somewhere and people's blind faith in science is leading the charge.

Sorry but once again I find your logic quite flawed. Science and technology evolved in any era. It used to be that in naval battles an enemy ship would need to be boarded to assure victory, or set on fire from a very close distance. Some time later, naval guns were developed. To contemporaries, they sure seemed "easy and robotic" compared to wielding a sword. Now, they seem quaint and heroic.