• WTB / WTS / WTT ADS
    All Advertisements, including Want to Buy, Want to Sell, Want to Trade, Belong in the MARKETPLACE ONLY. Any new threads posted offering an item for sale, looking to trade or buy an item which are posted outside of Marketplace will be deleted without notice or warning. Existing threads will be moved to marketplace.
  • Marketplace Feedback Ratings
    The Marketplace feedback ratings system is now back. You can now leave feedback for your Buy / Sell / Trade transactions. Instructions on how to leave feedback ratings can be found HERE

Future of Optics

ByronF

Well-known member
FALaholic #
630
Joined
Aug 11, 2000
Posts
8,506
Location
PA
Feedback: 57 / 0 / 0
In WW2 a single gun director could aim one or several AA guns to a target.

Today an Apache gunner can aim his chin turret to wherever the crosshair projected to his visor points.

When does this technology reach the infantry troop and his rifle?

How about an augmented reality visor for a tanker than makes the hull invisible to the crew? What they see are their equipment controls floating in space as they levitate across the battlefield?
 

hkshooter

Well-known member
Silver Contributor
FALaholic #
5391
Joined
Jan 26, 2002
Posts
13,506
Location
Central Indiana
Feedback: 287 / 0 / 0
In all of those technologies you mention, the physical gun is isolated from the aiming device. Input from the aiming device is sent to the gun via wires and servos or motors control the motion of the gun. With an infantry rifle the aiming device and the gun at attached to a carbon based, floppy living being so there is no solid base for the tech to work off of, no solid point of reference to use as a zero. Therefore the aiming device never knows where the gun is pointed vs where it wants it pointed.
HK developed a round that actually communicated with the scope and used data to know how many revolutions to turn before it self detonated, range being determined RPMs of the round at a particular velocity. But the scope didn't aim the round itself, that was still up to the rifleman. The day has yet to be seen where the man can point a rifle somewhere and use his head mounted aiming device to accurately fire a round on target.
 

ByronF

Well-known member
FALaholic #
630
Joined
Aug 11, 2000
Posts
8,506
Location
PA
Feedback: 57 / 0 / 0
I understand (sort of) the additional factors of having a wobbly variable physical relationship between the rifle and the aiming visor. But it has been a good darned time since the WW2 gun director, and also since an Apache gunner helmet was integrated. Seems like the tech should be near at hand.

Of course it's also been many a year since we landed on the moon and now I have to listen to bullshit about how near impossible it is to do so. Meanwhile, we have humanoid latex fuck robots and AI that can predict which crimes I'm likely to commit next.
 

hkshooter

Well-known member
Silver Contributor
FALaholic #
5391
Joined
Jan 26, 2002
Posts
13,506
Location
Central Indiana
Feedback: 287 / 0 / 0
I understand (sort of) the additional factors of having a wobbly variable physical relationship between the rifle and the aiming visor. But it has been a good darned time since the WW2 gun director, and also since an Apache gunner helmet was integrated. Seems like the tech should be near at hand.

Of course it's also been many a year since we landed on the moon and now I have to listen to bullshit about how near impossible it is to do so. Meanwhile, we have humanoid latex fuck robots and AI that can predict which crimes I'm likely to commit next.
The tech is already in use where the gun is mobile and the soldier is remote, commanding the gun to fire when he sees fit. It's not the same as you mention but it works about the same. The remote soldier sees what the gun sees and controls the picture. He can look around and evaluate his (well, the gun's) surroundings, find and acquire a target, and fire the gun. I see something like this being much more likely on the future combat field vs a soldier bared rifle that he aims with his eyes or head motion. Think of it as the "drone"* equivalent of the Air Force for the grunt. The big positive is it takes a very expensive battle field implement out of the way of harm, the soldier itself. War will be fought completely with remote vehicles and robots in the future. It's already well on it's way.

*I hate the term "drone" and how it's used today. What people have been erroneously led to believe is a drone is truly just a remote controlled aircraft, just like any other park flyer ever built. It's just a helicopter that's vastly easier and cheaper to fly. True drones are autonomous. You program them, press a button, and they go do their mission with zero input from outside sources until the mission is complete. Truly terrifying when applied against people.
 

fal762

Well-known member
FALaholic #
66358
Joined
May 19, 2012
Posts
2,080
Location
Pacific, Missouri
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
The SMASH 2000L and Tracking Point are steps in that direction
 
Top