Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army Buys Wearable Sniper Detectors
tfot ^ | 2/2/09 | tfot

Posted on 02/21/2009 6:56:52 AM PST by Flavius

The Rapid Equipping Force (REF) of the United States Army has purchased wearable sniper detector systems from QinetiQ Systems for soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deployment of the SWATS Soldier-Wearable Acoustic Targeting Systems will begin immediately and should be complete later in 2009. QinetiQ will also provide training and field support for these new systems.

http://thefutureofthings.com/upload/items_icons/Army-Buys-Wearable-Sniper-D_large.jpg

(Excerpt) Read more at thefutureofthings.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: snipers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 02/21/2009 6:56:53 AM PST by Flavius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Flavius

2 posted on 02/21/2009 6:57:13 AM PST by Flavius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Beats a hi-viz reflective vest. ;)


3 posted on 02/21/2009 6:57:44 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Personalized DTAB?


4 posted on 02/21/2009 7:02:07 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

yeah it works good apprentely its nice to know where the incoming are coming in


5 posted on 02/21/2009 7:08:51 AM PST by Flavius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
Seriously hot spit!

Nothing but the best for our guys (and gals).

6 posted on 02/21/2009 7:09:44 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

Looks like police may benefit


7 posted on 02/21/2009 7:12:24 AM PST by Flavius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Sounds like nothing but a simple audio detector that can only tell where the shot came from in a 360 degree angle but not elevation. I highly doubt it can tell how far away the shot originated. Seems like a snakeoil salesman is looking for DoD dollars.


8 posted on 02/21/2009 7:19:58 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberalism is Communism, and both are a mental disorder. Grow up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Maybe the snipers will just use the dectetors as a new aiming point.


9 posted on 02/21/2009 7:25:41 AM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Sounds like nothing but a simple audio detector that can only tell where the shot came from in a 360 degree angle but not elevation.

If I know the angle of the enemy sniper, I can find his position.

Part of the danger of snipers is not knowing which direction the shots are coming from. If you know the direction, you can find cover and then look along the trajectory path for likely sniper positions. The next step would be to get him to take a second shot. If he does he will pinpoint his location and BANG, no more sniper.

10 posted on 02/21/2009 7:28:43 AM PST by Blackhawk (God said it, I believe it, That settles it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I imagine it utilizes the other squads individual sensors to triangulate the location, collating it, and then creating a location solution based on multiple sensor locations. Smart. If it creates a solution with in 1/10 of a second how fast do you think a squad of guys can put lead onto a target regardless of elevation. most likely fast enough to prevent a 3rd shot by a sniper.


11 posted on 02/21/2009 7:32:33 AM PST by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

A single detector will only provide azimuth, however, a networked array can provide x, y, and z with good accuracy. The tough part is sorting out false detections and accounting for echoes, etc.

Azimuth alone is very valuable information, nonetheless. Long range snipers amongst the bad guys are extremely rare, most of them operate at ranges of less than 300 meters and an azimuth will enable effective suppressive fire very quickly.

And since you are so worried about the taxpayer getting ripped off, you might want to take a look at what is going on with the Simulus Package and Mortage bailout - I don’t think that this effort will make much of a ripple in that pond, and if it saves one soldier’s life then its money well spent.


12 posted on 02/21/2009 7:33:23 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

If it tells you direction and distance to the shooter a simple gun fire control system could have a gun or guns on the vehicle immediately shoot back. They didn’t completely design the system.

As as aside, one wonders about sound reflections and multiple shot inputs.


13 posted on 02/21/2009 7:33:31 AM PST by Citizen Tom Paine (Swift as the wind; Calmly majestic as a forest; Steady as the mountains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

I wonder how well they work in an all out firefight?


14 posted on 02/21/2009 7:33:50 AM PST by model B (attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference -- Sir Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Seems like a snakeoil salesman is looking for DoD dollars.

Look no father than congress. Follow the money and I’ll bet some politician sold it to the pentagon. (or more correctly some Chicongo hood)


15 posted on 02/21/2009 7:46:38 AM PST by chainsaw (The Democrat Party = The Party of Corruption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw
Seems like a snakeoil salesman is looking for DoD dollars.

I agree with you.

It's going to have to be very quiet to isolate
the specific incoming round that just killed you.


16 posted on 02/21/2009 8:01:13 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their ROCK, And the Most High God their Redeemer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; CodeToad
"and if it saves one soldier’s life then its money well spent."

Especially if it's YOUR son.

Helmets as well as vests don't protect against every bullet. Yet this doesn't prevent their use. Every invention has flaws, the trick is to weight their effectiveness vs. limitations( and costs) and correct them ASAP.
17 posted on 02/21/2009 8:01:56 AM PST by RedMonqey (History writes the best satire and the worst tragedies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt; CodeToad; chainsaw
It's going to have to be very quiet to isolate the specific incoming round that just killed you.

There are civilian computer programs that can elimate background noise and isolate the shooter's weapon profile.

I'm sure they are using an variant.
18 posted on 02/21/2009 8:08:00 AM PST by RedMonqey (History writes the best satire and the worst tragedies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I can’t imagine how it would know distance either. To know that, it would have to have some reference point. Perhaps it detects echoes and triangulates the position.


19 posted on 02/21/2009 8:18:11 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Margret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Blackhawk

“Sounds like nothing but a simple audio detector that can only tell where the shot came from in a 360 degree angle but not elevation.”

**If I know the angle of the enemy sniper, I can find his position.**

The bullet travels faster than the sound of the shot. You never hear the shot that kills you.


20 posted on 02/21/2009 8:19:14 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Good for the troops, bad for the second amendment.


21 posted on 02/21/2009 8:26:22 AM PST by Ajnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Sounds like nothing but a simple audio detector that can only tell where the shot came from in a 360 degree angle but not elevation. I highly doubt it can tell how far away the shot originated. Seems like a snakeoil salesman is looking for DoD dollars.

With that kind of baseline, even knowing anything more than which quadrant he shot came from is going to be problematic. Your ear's have a longer baseline, and probably do a better job of localizing a shot.

22 posted on 02/21/2009 8:48:31 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Flavius; All

Good post, good thread. BTTT!


23 posted on 02/21/2009 8:53:48 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

Let do it the old fashion way. You take a prisoner, put him in a US uniform and send him out in front of a patrol. When he gets zapped, then you just solved two problems.


24 posted on 02/21/2009 9:18:22 AM PST by Yorlik803 ( Freedom- 07-04-1776-11-06-2008. RIP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
The bullet travels faster than the sound of the shot. You never hear the shot that kills you.

Given.

But the nature of the device implies that a shot has been made and the "survivors" are provided with a direction. If I am the target of the first shot then it will be unlikely that I would be concerned with the sniper location. If I am not the target of the first shot, then I would love to have that information to assist me in not being the target of the second.

As long as a sniper can remain hidden there is no contest, his only opponents are the elements and detection. Once detected, he competes against return fire.

25 posted on 02/21/2009 9:23:42 AM PST by Blackhawk (God said it, I believe it, That settles it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

“I don’t think that this effort will make much of a ripple in that pond, and if it saves one soldier’s life then its money well spent.”

Funny thing, that’s the excuse liberals use for all their pork barrel spending. Second, wanna save a tons of lives? Start using better politics and stop sending troops into harms way with dangerous ROE. Stop using troops for law enforcement purposes. Use them for war, all out war, and stop using them as an extension of weak willed foreign policy.

Troops already know which way the shot came from. Saddling them with another pound or two of nearly useless gear is just asking for more trouble.

What’s next, the “dirty weapons indicator” for a mere $100 that tells a troop when to clean their weapon because “if it saves just one life from a jammed weapon it is worth the cost”?


26 posted on 02/21/2009 9:37:16 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberalism is Communism, and both are a mental disorder. Grow up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; centurion316

“Funny thing, that’s the excuse liberals use for all their pork barrel spending. Second, wanna save a tons of lives? Start using better politics and stop sending troops into harms way with dangerous ROE.”


It sounds like a good piece of equipment and now that it has reached the field it will only improve over time.

Keeping our soldiers vulnerable to enemy snipers to further your politics seems a little callous to me.


27 posted on 02/21/2009 10:00:16 AM PST by ansel12 ( When a conservative pundit mocks Wasilla, he's mocking conservatism as it's actually lived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I recall that many of the snipers in Iraq pop up out of a vehicle in areas with heavy foot traffic, behind crowds of pedestrians, fire one round and high tail. If every Humvee and foot patrol came with pilotless aerial surveillance and the ground audio locator array can be integrated with overhead surveillance, the escape vehicle can be tracked and knocked out a few blocks away, on a less populated street.


28 posted on 02/21/2009 10:35:37 AM PST by Yollopoliuhqui
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Yollopoliuhqui

It seems that our ability to deal with enemy snipers is greatly improving just in time, just as the enemy are starting to create a sniper capability.


29 posted on 02/21/2009 10:44:08 AM PST by ansel12 ( When a conservative pundit mocks Wasilla, he's mocking conservatism as it's actually lived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

I guess they are talking about the gadget on his shoulder. What is the gizmo on his helmet?


30 posted on 02/21/2009 10:50:29 AM PST by csmusaret (You can't spell Democrat without R-A-T.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
"....and if it saves one soldier's life then its money well spent."

Oh booshwa!!!!!

You obviously have listened to Oprah et al too much.

Your silly remark is another "if it saves just one...." liberal slogan.

If the use of these devices means soldiers must carry more gear, I would wager it will cost lives in the long run. They are already burdened down with heavy, bulky gear that reduces their mobility and endurance.

When you hear "if it saves just one....", guard your wallet and grab some popcorn, 'cuz the unintended consequences of flighty reasoning is often great entertainment.

Just don't lay that kind of crap on our warriors.

31 posted on 02/21/2009 11:22:46 AM PST by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

And your combat experience is?

And your contribution to the current war effort has been what?

When I need advice from an ATC on what the combat load for an infantryman ought to be and what sniper countermeasures make sense for ground combat forces, I’ll certainly contact you.


32 posted on 02/21/2009 2:34:13 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

i think on rather long range shots that the sound of the explosion can overtake the bullet’s accrued speed as the bullet slows markedly from muzzle to say 1200 yards plus.. I think most 7.62 drops below 1100 fps around 1200 yards

I’m sure someone here knows....this forum is like AR-15.com jr

anything less than 1100/ft per second bullet speed and sound catches up in due course

and what about sub sonic rounds?


33 posted on 02/21/2009 3:04:37 PM PST by wardaddy (I feel like a Boer but this time white northern liberals are playing the English)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Keeping our soldiers vulnerable to enemy snipers to further your politics seems a little callous to me.”

I’m sorry, but that is just horsepoop to say that. Go wrap yourself in the flag someplace else. Practical solutions to real problems is one thing; cheating our soldiers by making them think this is protecting them is just profiting at their expense. Only an idiot would think this cheesy device is going to protect them from snipers. Have you served? Do you even know what a sniper is, how they operate, or how this will or will not protect them? Are you an engineer who understands this type of technology and how is it bogus at best? I have served and I am an engineer who understands what a waste this is.


34 posted on 02/21/2009 3:44:45 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberalism is Communism, and both are a mental disorder. Grow up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
"And your combat experience is?"

Booshwa squared.

I don't have to have held ANY position in order to have an opinion, based on commonsense and published data.

There have been many articles about heavy combat loads in hot/high conditions. And every new technology is not always applicable to every task.

Does this enlighten you? I surely hope so...... if it saves just one idiot from embarassing himself.

35 posted on 02/21/2009 4:08:42 PM PST by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“Funny thing, that’s the excuse liberals use for all their pork barrel spending. Second, wanna save a tons of lives? Start using better politics and stop sending troops into harms way with dangerous ROE. Stop using troops for law enforcement purposes. Use them for war, all out war, and stop using them as an extension of weak willed foreign policy.”


That is why I posted this “Keeping our soldiers vulnerable to enemy snipers to further your politics seems a little callous to me.” to you.

Yes I am an army vet and this less than one pound (total weight) device seems to be a workable idea that according to Strategypage was tested and found to work in Afghanistan.


36 posted on 02/21/2009 4:37:47 PM PST by ansel12 ( When a conservative pundit mocks Wasilla, he's mocking conservatism as it's actually lived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

You are certainly living up to the record recorded in your posts. You seem to take great pleasure in insulting and berating others without adding much to the debate.

As for my comment, no I didn’t get the notion from Oprah. Having to write letters to mothers and wives telling them that their sons/husbands weren’t come home helped form my opinion, though. Another thing that helped was having to pick up body parts so that loved ones got some comfort in being able to say that they had a body to bury.

Goodbye.


37 posted on 02/21/2009 4:51:54 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; diogenes ghost
"If the use of these devices means soldiers must carry more gear, I would wager it will cost lives in the long run. They are already burdened down with heavy, bulky gear that reduces their mobility and endurance. When you hear "if it saves just one....", guard your wallet and grab some popcorn, 'cuz the unintended consequences of flighty reasoning is often great entertainment. Just don't lay that kind of crap on our warriors." ============================================================

centurion I read some of your posts and saw this about you, it seems to me that you might know a little about carrying combat loads in hot climates.

"Many of the things I later did in Vietnam as an aero rifle platoon leader, long range recon platoon leader and rifle company commander were techniques developed by General Kinnard and his 11th Air Assault Division."

38 posted on 02/21/2009 5:13:09 PM PST by ansel12 ( When a conservative pundit mocks Wasilla, he's mocking conservatism as it's actually lived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Thanks, if you have HBO, you might want to tune in to Taking Chance. Its not much, just about one little Marine PFC who was KIA - one little PFC doesn’t mean very much, does he. At least that’s what our friend Diogenes would say.


39 posted on 02/21/2009 5:27:45 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
If it tells you direction and distance to the shooter a simple gun fire control system could have a gun or guns on the vehicle immediately shoot back.

I was part of a team that did design just such a system, so your thoughts are right on the mark. Wasn't ready for prime time, unfortunately. What works in a lab and on a sterile range, doesn't necessarily work in the real world. That was the case here. Lots of tough software, hardware integration to do, but it will get done.

40 posted on 02/21/2009 5:33:10 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Only an idiot would think this cheesy device is going to protect them from snipers.

The best counter sniper system is another sniper. However, a number of sensor systems can be and are providing useful tools in dectecting, locating, and bringing effective fires on snipers.

Some of these technologies seemed hairbrained at first. Some of them proved to be just that. But, others have met the test of both time and combat. The jury is still out on this device. The Army's Rapid Equipping Force conducts in theater operational assessments on technologies like these. Some of them end up in the scrap heap, but others get adopted and deserve to be. I'm sure you haven't seen the data on this, but if you did you might change your mind. Acoustic sensors have come a long way in the last four years.

41 posted on 02/21/2009 5:49:13 PM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost
If the use of these devices means soldiers must carry more gear, I would wager it will cost lives in the long run. They are already burdened down with heavy, bulky gear that reduces their mobility and endurance.

Are you just stupid? I'd GLADLY trade an extra carried MRE for this thing to be able to pinpoint the badguy sniper throwing lead my way.

42 posted on 02/21/2009 5:59:48 PM PST by Centurion2000 (01-20-2009 : The end of the PAX AMERICANA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

“Thanks, if you have HBO, you might want to tune in to Taking Chance.”


I’ll catch it when the video reaches the library, but I do keep up with the reviews and it sounds very good.


43 posted on 02/21/2009 6:40:27 PM PST by ansel12 ( When a conservative pundit mocks Wasilla, he's mocking conservatism as it's actually lived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Shows a great need for industrial design. Butt ugly.


44 posted on 02/21/2009 7:03:36 PM PST by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Last Dakotan

If it works does it matter


45 posted on 02/21/2009 7:11:19 PM PST by Flavius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

“I’m sure you haven’t seen the data on this, but if you did you might change your mind”

And you would be wrong. I have seen the acustics data of such devices. Signals processing is a thing I am an expert. I know the issues and these devices have issues. Alert, well trained troops far beat having yet another device they are told to rely on but will fail them.

The counter sniper devices that do work are the MMW systems. Those devices work because they detect the round from nearly the barrel to the target. They can not only trace where the round came from but its type as well.


46 posted on 02/21/2009 8:10:22 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberalism is Communism, and both are a mental disorder. Grow up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

” found to work in Afghanistan.”

I can make a ham sandwich seem to work, too. Data lies. Just because it worked to some degree does not mean the troops found it useful. Tried and true beats nifty and neat every time. Working in the engineering sector I’ve seen more crap thrown at the troops as the next greatest thing so some defense contractor whose paid off a Senator can make a few bucks when all the troops really want are basic things that work well.


47 posted on 02/21/2009 8:16:35 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberalism is Communism, and both are a mental disorder. Grow up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“And you would be wrong. I have seen the acustics data of such devices. Signals processing is a thing I am an expert.”


What is the truth about this specific 12oz.to 15oz. device, that this war time army is concealing by issuing it as ready for field use?


48 posted on 02/21/2009 8:21:07 PM PST by ansel12 ( When a conservative pundit mocks Wasilla, he's mocking conservatism as it's actually lived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
"Are you stupid?"

Google the term "soldiers carry weight", then tell me that I'm stupid.

The results of the search will help to explain the weight aspect of my questioning of this new technologie's efficacy.

There are many, many tools, gadgets, etc that soldiers could carry that would protect them, but you'd need to be superman to carry them all.

49 posted on 02/21/2009 8:28:13 PM PST by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“Just because it worked to some degree does not mean the troops found it useful.”


You sure are kind of vague, most of your protest seemed to be about politics and then money and then, that as a veteran, (sniper I guess)since you made a big deal about whether I was or not, that if we aren’t veterans we can’t know anything about this kind off thing, now you seem to be saying that although it worked some, the troops didn’t find it useful.

You keep telling us that you are an engineer and an expert but you don’t seem to know any details about this specific system that has hit the field, and then you go back to politics.

Just give us some facts about this specific unit.


50 posted on 02/21/2009 8:34:10 PM PST by ansel12 ( When a conservative pundit mocks Wasilla, he's mocking conservatism as it's actually lived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson