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

Skip to comments.

Israel readying anti-sniper system
The Times of India ^ | July 20 2002 | PTI

Posted on 07/20/2002 4:10:03 PM PDT by knighthawk

WASHINGTON: Israeli marksmen and counter-terror squads deployed along the Palestinian areas of the West Bank are field-testing a new anti-sniper system designed for the early detection of enemy snipers, media reports said.

The anti-sniper system, Believer is completing the developmental testing under actual urban warfare conditions and awaits approval for the full rate production, Defence News Weekly quoted Israeli officials as saying.

The system that costs around 2 million dollars per copy, can detect the enemy sniper within one-third of a second tracing the bullet path and it either return fire automatically or reveal the exact sniper location to the tactical field commanders.


TOPICS: Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antisniper; banglist; israel; miltech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100 last
To: American in Israel
Naw....hook it up to a jessy Ventura minigun.

While on float in the Med aboard the Marine Corps WASP. They zipped a drone overhead and let the gatling gun loose on it...

That thing pulled up and began to track....then all you heard was one low, constant VROOOM.

Then we all got a nice frosting of softly descending drone pieces.

51 posted on 07/20/2002 11:50:54 PM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
It sounds like this system looks for lenses, so eyeglasses are out too, I think.

BTW, I read that Israeli General Moshe Dayan earned his eyepatch while looking over a berm through binocs. The mulitple lenses slowed the Egyptian bullet down a lot, but not enough.

52 posted on 07/20/2002 11:52:28 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Works on "sound" I believe....look at the pic and note the mic's on the stands........

Stay Safe !

53 posted on 07/21/2002 12:11:49 AM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I dont see it zooming in and smoking every poor sap that happens to be wearing a pair of Kenneth Cole frames.

Probably a little more high speed then that.

54 posted on 07/21/2002 12:27:05 AM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Sorry...."than"
55 posted on 07/21/2002 12:27:33 AM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
I dunno. Maybe maybe not. If it's looking for the shine from a lense, I don't see how it can tell the end of a scope or binocs as mentioned from an eyeglass lens.
56 posted on 07/21/2002 12:37:44 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
There appear to be two devices/detection capabilities being discussed here: An acoustic one to locate the source of a fired shot, and a laser one to locate the shine off of optics. I guess this latter can tell the difference between a flat piece of glass and a shaped lens.

I must assume that if this is getting print today, the USSS has had it for years.

Bingo! The was one of the obvious thoughts about this - how long has it been deployed already? How long was the F-117 around before they became widely known?

57 posted on 07/21/2002 1:26:40 AM PDT by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of Richard Nixon
Nah, the F-16 is too small for the serious work. Sell B-52's to Israel now!
58 posted on 07/21/2002 3:44:41 AM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
The anti-artillery system is named COBRA (Counter Battery Radar). International website
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder Radar
AN/TPQ-37 Firefinder Radar
59 posted on 07/21/2002 3:54:15 AM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All
METRAVIB RDS - PILAR ANTI SNIPER SYSTEM - GUNSHOT DETECTION AND LOCALIZATION

The PILAR-MKII is the portable ground based version of gun shot detection and localization system with two antennas linked to a CPU for combined processing. From the detection of acoustic waves of the passing bullet (shock wave) and the firing weapon (muzzle blast) the system yields and records, using patented signal-processing algorithms

60 posted on 07/21/2002 3:59:40 AM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MD_Willington_1976
Yes, that was it. Pretty amazing stuff.
61 posted on 07/21/2002 7:04:48 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I agree about the two systems. Perhaps it uses acoustic to get a rough location, and laser to pinpoint the sniper's scope.

But I don't see how it can tell one curved lens from another: scope or eyeglass.

62 posted on 07/21/2002 9:47:18 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
Thanks!
63 posted on 07/21/2002 9:47:59 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore
"If this works, it would be very impressive"

It works. The technology is referred to as fire finder. A fire finder can detect and return fire to the point of origin from the incomming round in less than a second. It was first developed in the 1980's. I am sure thay have numerous improvments since them.

64 posted on 07/21/2002 9:57:33 AM PDT by SSN558
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ChadGore
"If this works, it would be very impressive"

It works. The technology is referred to as fire finder. A fire finder can detect and return fire to the point of origin from the incomming round in less than a second. It was first developed in the 1980's. I am sure thay have numerous improvments since them.

65 posted on 07/21/2002 10:02:05 AM PDT by SSN558
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
It would have to be a little more sophisticated then simply aquiring a shine....otherwise they'd be blowing out everyones house, business, car windows.
66 posted on 07/21/2002 10:03:38 AM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
One shot - one kill ... and MOVE!
67 posted on 07/21/2002 10:27:43 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Is it possible that microphone technology has advanced to the point that the array is no longer needed; i.e., is it possible for a microphone to pick up the faint whistling and buzzing a bullet makes in flight, even from a great distance? And even during the racket of combat?
Indeed, I think the main trick to this whole deal is exactly picking out the data only from a single shot, from a cacphony of noises to be expected in any actual battle. But if you actually had a simple problem--a single gun firing a single shot--you would still need information from no less than two microphones just as your brain can only estimate the direction of a source of sound if you have two ears.

I'm confident that directional information from a reasonably compact microphone will not be extremely accurate directionally. You've seen directional microphones made with large parabolic reflectors, used to eavesdrop on football huddles from the sideline. It's true that such a microphone would discriminate fairly well directionally, down to maybe 10 degrees or so perhaps. But then, the loudness of the report and the sound of the (hopefully missing) bullet's flight when detected doesn't tell you a whole lot about the direction unless you can tweak the direction and listen to another report.

If on the other hand you had two microphones spaced some distance apart laterally, then you can infer something about direction from the difference in time of arrival of the report at the two locations. If there is none that implies that the shot came from somewhere on the plane which is the perpendicular bisecter of the line between the two microphones; otherwise there will be a more complicated surface on which the source must lie. If you add in the time of arrival at each microphone of the snap due to the shock wave off the supersonic bullet, that could suggest how far the bullet missed by, and if you guess the speed of the bullet that could give you an idea of range to the source of the shot.

But I think to have any hope of a definitive solution for the location of the shooter, say nothing of the trajectory of the shot, you must have three microphones or probably more.

And I would assume that the reason they derive the trajectory of the shot is just for show; you are much more concerned about where the next shot might go than about where the last one went in detail. If you know accurately where the shooter is and can communicate with artillery you might prevent the next shot altogether. Not sporting but then, that's pretty much the point of military technology.


68 posted on 07/21/2002 11:14:23 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
In the interests of historical accuracy:

During World War II Moshe Dayan served in the British army and was part of a Jewish advance unit sent to prevent the Vichy French from blowing up the bridges between Lebanon and Palestine, thus providing time for the British main force to take the offensive. It was during that campaign that he lost one eye; he was looking through binoculars when a bullet ricocheted off them.

69 posted on 07/22/2002 5:50:52 AM PDT by anapikoros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
From Reply 34: The technology enables the building of databases of specific optical device signatures to better assess threat levels.

This is the laser based system if I am not mistaken. In other words, it sounds like they can characterize the signatures of different types of returns and put those in a database.

A specific return signal would be matched against the database to try to determine the source. If that particular signature was flagged for an alarm, the user would be notified. That means it would be able to eliminate things like window glass.

If the engineers decide what to flag for alarms and what not to, it will be a relatively simple system to operate, but not as robust. If the user does the flagging, the system would be much more useful, but harder to set up and maintain.

Although the two systems could possibly be used in conjunction as you suggest, it sounds like they are just two competing technologies for the same type of job from the descriptions.

Ruck

70 posted on 07/22/2002 6:24:15 AM PDT by Have Ruck - Will Travel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: anapikoros
Thanks! I gladly stand corrected!
71 posted on 07/22/2002 7:40:52 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Have Ruck - Will Travel
It's certainly an interesting subject, and I hope we find out more as time goes on. I wonder how quickly this can be set up and "tweaked" for a particular location, IOW, will it be used mainly in well known "sniper allies" such as in East Jerusalem and fixed position VIP protection, or will it move out with the troops readily?
72 posted on 07/22/2002 7:45:22 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Well it gets my attention! I have read about anti mortar tech based on radar which would reveal the source location, I don't know if this anti sniper system is strictly sound based, radar, microwave or what.

That's been around for a long while, and it's called "counterbattery radar." The view isn't the old round radar scope; instead, a bright light highlights the map grid from whence the round came. Mortars pose their own unique problems, but the principle's the same.

Incidentally, we even have man-portable jammers to defeat proximity fuses (they make the round detonate early).

73 posted on 07/22/2002 8:51:52 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Ping!

As the tech gets better, the simple rifleman may be left in the dust as "robo soldier" with his superman visor is able to "see" folks out past 1000 yards and hit them easliy with his 25 mm exploding proximity round etc.

And for sure, the goobermint ain't going to be passing that stuff out to civilians.

74 posted on 07/23/2002 7:39:05 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
Ping!
75 posted on 07/23/2002 7:40:21 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Jeff Head; *bang_list
Thanks for the flag, Travis. I have to agree with Jeff's appraisal -- shoot, move, shoot move, then hotel alpha to fight another day. A good technique even without the existence of this newer technology, since you want to be out of the AO anyway before fast movers are raining snake and nape all over your position.


76 posted on 07/23/2002 8:48:49 AM PDT by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Incidentally, we even have man-portable jammers to defeat proximity fuses (they make the round detonate early).

Ping

77 posted on 07/23/2002 8:51:49 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
We need Ron Horiuchi to help them test this.
78 posted on 07/23/2002 9:33:47 AM PDT by GreyWolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Well it gets my attention! I have read about anti mortar tech based on radar which would reveal the source location, I don't know if this anti sniper system is strictly sound based, radar, microwave or what.

That's the AN/TPQ-36 and -37 *firefinder* counterbattery radars. They work.

They can pick up fired mortar rounds in flight, send out targeting data to a field artillery Fire Direction Control center, and have rounds fired and on the way before the mortar shells land.

The original versions with which I worked were based in 2½-ton trucks; the current systems can be moved by a standard HUMVEE. They're getting there. The Marines had one atop the barracks in Lebanon that was destroyed by the truck bomb, I believe, set up to coordinate naval gunfire in response to mortar or recon attacks against the Marine barracks...and so instead, the terrorists resorted to a truck bomb for their attack. *Firefinder*.


79 posted on 07/23/2002 10:06:51 AM PDT by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
" Had the system been in place November 22, 1963, it could have shot E. Howard Hunt and Woody Harrelson's father. Or not.]

Thanks for the laugh.

80 posted on 07/23/2002 10:43:39 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
You're going to love this. The U.S. Army had developed a system like this so they could measure various rounds. They invited Mike Venturino out to the Yuma testing grounds. Since they now had something to track individual small arms bullets, they invited Mike out so they could duplicate Billy Dixon's shot at Adobe Walls. The article was in the September 94 issue of Shooting Times.
To the Freepers who aren't familiar with Billy Dixon, he was in an Indian fight at Adobe Walls, Texas with Bat Masterson. In a lull in the battle, a group of Indians were on a bluff and Billy was invited to take a shot with a borrowed "Big fifty", actual caliber unknown. He shot one of the Indians off his horse, an admitted "Scratch Shot". An Army surveying group later measured the distance to be 1538 yards.
81 posted on 07/23/2002 10:59:32 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
The U.S. system uses radar.
82 posted on 07/23/2002 11:02:11 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Defeating mortar proximity fuses is a different beast from what you and I were discussing earlier. Five will get you ten that you defeat mortar proximity fuses with magnetics, but the "proximity fuse" on suicide bombers is some idiot with a button. You defeat them by detonating the actual explosives rather than the fuse. Sorta like tossing a bullet into a fire or microwaving a stick of dynamite, external energy can trigger explosives in several circumstances. Who wants to be working with nitroglycerine during an electrical storm, after all...

Same concept, writ large for the battlefield.

83 posted on 07/23/2002 11:28:21 AM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: packrat01
ping
84 posted on 07/23/2002 1:31:41 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
"Aw that's nothin. I once shot a running jackrabbit at...."

Oh, you already heard that one?

85 posted on 07/23/2002 1:34:10 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: archy
I hope it's gotten smaller and more portable in 20 years! (BTW, I rappeled off that roof in the winter/spring of 1983, and I didn't see anything like that then. The arty battles came later.)
86 posted on 07/23/2002 1:36:13 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
I think that since one is all you'll ever get, the cold bore shot is the one to work on above all else.
87 posted on 07/23/2002 1:37:43 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Have Ruck - Will Travel; Travis McGee
This is the laser based system if I am not mistaken. In other words, it sounds like they can characterize the signatures of different types of returns and put those in a database.

A specific return signal would be matched against the database to try to determine the source. If that particular signature was flagged for an alarm, the user would be notified. That means it would be able to eliminate things like window glass.

I've got to wonder if putting a flat filter lens over the scope's objective would make a scope "read" enough differently to the laser that it would be overlooked. Sort of like when you put a clear filter over a camera lens to protect the camera lens.

88 posted on 07/23/2002 2:02:44 PM PDT by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I think I heard that story and the one with Deer yards.
When I go to the range and the beginners think the 200 yard range is 400 yards.
What has been fun is inviting some of the hot shots to a CMP qualification match. I don't do it to put anyone down. I really do want everyone to get a CMP Garand. Hearing the excuses not to go is just a bonus.
We were watching some beginners shoot and I had to turn away because I was laughing too hard. Then I realized what an elitist $%#&* I was becoming. I have to continue to invite people to shoot. I just don't want to waste my time with people who somehow can hit a gnat at a thousand and then not go to the range.
89 posted on 07/23/2002 3:08:49 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
Good question!!
90 posted on 07/23/2002 8:39:59 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I regret that I live in Cali from the shooting perspective! I wish I could get out to nice long ranges without driving for hours.
91 posted on 07/23/2002 8:41:01 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: pocat
Ping!
92 posted on 07/23/2002 8:41:25 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I still would have to drive for hours to get to a 600 yard range. That's why I don't go. There is one thing though, I have a "deer lease". The good thing is that there hasn't been deer there for years. I can shoot out to 375. Those pictures are labeled, shooting, if I remember correctly. Check your Freepmail. The gun club I go to has a 200 yard range.
93 posted on 07/23/2002 9:30:34 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I'd sure love a 375 yard course in close driving range!
94 posted on 07/23/2002 9:44:47 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I've got to wonder if putting a flat filter lens over the scope's objective would make a scope "read" enough differently to the laser that it would be overlooked. Sort of like when you put a clear filter over a camera lens to protect the camera lens.

I had a similar idea myself. A "filter" using plain window glass. A camera type filter, even a clear one, is polished I believe. If so, it would give a similar signature to the polished objective lens I would think. I don't know if the laser would find polished optics behind a regular piece of glass or not. It would be interesting to find out. (although I wouldn't want to find out the hard way that it didn't work)

Also, the effect on sighting through an imperfect piece of glass would reduce the effective range of whatever you were shooting.

Ruck

95 posted on 07/24/2002 3:49:27 AM PDT by Have Ruck - Will Travel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Thanx for the ping; now, back to your book.
96 posted on 07/24/2002 4:40:01 AM PDT by packrat01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Have Ruck - Will Travel; harpseal; Squantos
I think the laser would go right through the flat glass and find the cuved lenses and report back "SNIPER! FIRE!"
97 posted on 07/24/2002 7:51:20 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Have Ruck - Will Travel
I have experience with laser mic's and if a surface is reflective it is reflective regardless of the filters unless a very powerful laser is used to go through. Such as the Co2 lasers we used to cook off landminds in experimental EOD rendersafe procedures.

I'm still thinking the key to the "best" countersniper systems is "sound". The above pic I posted seems to have a system on the tripods that will, with the use of a puter , trianglulate the source based on the frequency of a set of possibles to include those using a can/supressor/silencer.

Way too many iron sighted possibilities to waste duckets on a system based solely on optics IMHO. Supersonic velocities supressed by a silencer/supressor will fool the human ear as to direction unless your operating in a closed end pipe. But , again IMHO, they won't fool good acoustic sensors.

Just my two cents based on my doubt that a really good systems "how it works" will not be revealed to the masses.

Stay Safe !

98 posted on 07/24/2002 8:07:37 AM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Squantos; Shooter 2.5; archy
As far as the info being close held: after 99 replies, we are still debating the basic principles! I am sure the best of the best is around POTUS, but I wonder about the cost, mobility, and speed to put into action (ie does it need to be tweaked for each new locale before it's effective.)

I also note that tech filters down, and in Sportsmans Guide you can buy NODs, crude thermal imaging devices, laser range finders, parabolic "big ears" etc.

Still, the rule of one shot and move is always to be recommended. The cold bore shot is the only shot to worry about!

99 posted on 07/24/2002 8:14:53 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: archy; Travis McGee; Squantos
Yeah, but is this equipment itself - bulletproof? The unit in the picture has good cover around the bottom, but what about the panel apparatus facing out? For this thing to work, something has to stick out. There's an Achilles heel somewhere...

I'm sure their locations are kept low-key, but if it can effectively return fire to a sniper's position, it too can be hit.

I also saw the shot-finder on the Discovery Channel program discussed above. It worked totally on acoustics. Deploying them in big city hoods is surely underway.

100 posted on 07/24/2002 4:56:45 PM PDT by pocat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100 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