# Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to get life saving anti-sniper device



## RHFC_piper (22 Nov 2008)

Thought this seemed kind of interesting...  If it actually works in operational theater it would save lives.  Thoughts?

------------------------------------------------

*Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to get life saving anti-sniper device* 
article link



> British and American forces fighting the guerilla insurgence in Iraq and Afghanistan could soon be protected by an anti-sniper device that can pinpoint the position of the shooter within a fraction of a second.
> 
> The palm-sized device designed by Qinetiq, the British defence firm that was once the government research laboratories, is pinned to the uniform and uses acoustic technology to calculate the exact position of the rifle fire.
> 
> Then a electronic voice passes on the "bearing and range" to the soldier allowing him to jump to safety and return fire.


More on link


----------



## PAT-Platoon (22 Nov 2008)

This could definitely be used as an amazing tool to counteract sniper fire. I however hesitate a bit because this needs to be handled carefully. For example in a crowded city, when it gives you the information that proper fire control is given so that the initial reaction isn't simply "sniper fire from *here*, get a .50 on that house!" because we all know how faulty some technology can be. Though it being used as a proper means of hunting down snipers and not simply reactions that could possibly enable some serious collateral damage would make it a fine tool. To be fair my comment has less to do with the device but rather how it is used, so my endorsement stands for it in the end.

-C/D


----------



## Snafu-Bar (22 Nov 2008)

Interesting piece of hardware, too bad it has to wait till the sniper takes a shot.

Cheers.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> This could definitely be used as an amazing tool to counteract sniper fire. I however hesitate a bit because this needs to be handled carefully. For example in a crowded city, when it gives you the information that proper fire control is given so that the initial reaction isn't simply "sniper fire from *here*, get a .50 on that house!" because we all know how faulty some technology can be. Though it being used as a proper means of hunting down snipers and not simply reactions that could possibly enable some serious collateral damage would make it a fine tool. To be fair my comment has less to do with the device but rather how it is used, so my endorsement stands for it in the end.
> 
> -C/D



Do you have to always try to antagonize the membership here?  With your sotto voce manner of getting attention, you try to engage in any debate possible.

Now it is finding "Collateral" Damage from a useful device.

Sad, really it is.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> This could definitely be used as an amazing tool to counteract sniper fire. I however hesitate a bit because this needs to be handled carefully. For example in a crowded city, when it gives you the information that proper fire control is given so that the initial reaction isn't simply "sniper fire from *here*, get a .50 on that house!" because we all know how faulty some technology can be. Though it being used as a proper means of hunting down snipers and not simply reactions that could possibly enable some serious collateral damage would make it a fine tool. To be fair my comment has less to do with the device but rather how it is used, so my endorsement stands for it in the end.
> 
> -C/D



You don't know what you're talking about. Simple speculation on something you don't understand. 

Tic...toc...tic...t


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Nov 2008)

Great invention!

I was in Baghdad when Juba reined, and if this device was present then, I am sure it would have saved many lives, no matter how it was deployed. Snipers in Baghdad took many Coaltion soldiers during my tour. We were the lucky ones.

However, we did capture a number of 7.62 x 54mm SVD's and the unique 7.62 x 39mm Tabuk sniper variant, of some in which I personally completed the paperwork courtesy of the AHU (Army History Unit) in Canberra, and now some of these rifles are on display or held by both the Australian War Memorial, and the Infantry Museum at Singleton NSW.

Sniping, along with IED/EFP was a daily threat, and the only obvious countermeasure we had for snipers was to drop down into our hatches through choke points and infamous known sniper areas when we slowed down enough to give them a clear and easy shot at us. We remained dilligent and always presented ourselves as hard targets. In my belief, our hard posture was half the battle of not luring a tempting sniper (these guys are not and were not stupid), who lays in wait for an easy kill. The Type II LAVs with RWS and .50 M2 QCB's were also a bonus, the C/C was buttoned up, monitering his screen, and ready to "light 'em up" if required.

OWDU.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> I however hesitate a bit because this needs to be handled carefully. For example in a crowded city, when it gives you the information that proper fire control is given so that the initial reaction isn't simply "sniper fire from *here*, get a .50 on that house!" because we all know how faulty some technology can be.



Are you implying this is what our soldiers do?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Nov 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Are you implying this is what our soldiers do?



Actually, I think he is indicating that he doesn't know a smick of what he is talking about.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2008)

This shows he's gone past "indicating".


----------



## Mike Baker (22 Nov 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Interesting piece of hardware, too bad it has to wait till the sniper takes a shot.
> 
> Cheers.


That's what I was thinking. But one has to remember that armour has saved many lives from snipers. I don't know the numbers for sure though.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (23 Nov 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Are you implying this is what our soldiers do?



No, I don't think the Canadian Forces has that problem. From my experiences and the precedent set by past operations, the CF has shown it to be quite competent overall with its force projection and subsequent collateral damage. I am more worried about other nation's armed forces, that dont show the same restraint that we do in our line of duty.

-C/D


----------



## PanaEng (23 Nov 2008)

hmmm, maybe like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXMjh_XbkiI

notice the "Allah Akbar" got louder after he sees the guy get up ;D

cheers,
Frank


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2008)

The problem with these devices is they are not good in an urban environment where the sound waves reverberate from building.  Secondly a lot of insurgent snipers use suppressed (even ghetto suppressed) systems, that deny the thump of expanding muzzle gasses.


----------



## PanaEng (23 Nov 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The problem with these devices is they are not good in an urban environment where the sound waves reverberate from building.  Secondly a lot of insurgent snipers use suppressed (even ghetto suppressed) systems, that deny the thump of expanding muzzle gasses.


Absolutely.
The only reliable way to get an accurate direction (with current technology) would be with some sort of radar device. However, I don't think there is anything out there that fast, powerful and portable to be effective in tracking small bullets.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> No, I don't think the Canadian Forces has that problem. *From my experiences *  and the precedent set by past operations, the CF has shown it to be quite competent overall with its force projection and subsequent collateral damage. I am more worried about other nation's armed forces, that dont show the same restraint that we do in our line of duty.
> 
> -C/D



 :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> I am more worried about other nation's armed forces, that dont show the same restraint that we do in our line of duty.



Welcome to the warning system.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Absolutely.
> The only reliable way to get an accurate direction (with current technology) would be with some sort of radar device. However, I don't think there is anything out there that fast, powerful and portable to be effective in tracking small bullets.
> 
> cheers,
> Frank



There is, but all our vehicles would end up looking like Divisional Antenna Farms.  For those familiar with the old Super Dart Range in Gagetown, or perhaps some of the Ranges in the States, where there is no one in the Butts and your shot is indicated on a monitor at the firing position, you will know that such technology has been around for quite some time.  My youngest brother asked me years ago if such technology would be good for the military, when he was working on a project to adjust automobile suspensions using sensors to detect potholes and other roadway "imperfections".  The technology is there, but the time and expense of installing and training operators is probably impractical at the moment.


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2008)

George,
   Yes technically it  possible -- however not just antena farms but a metric but load of computers.  Look at the ATS ranges, which still botch a lot of shots, and the location of the weapon is a given...

While sniper defeat systems are backburnered compared to IED defeat, there is still a lot of time and money going into trying to solve this puzzle as well.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> No, I don't think the Canadian Forces has that problem. From my experiences and the precedent set by past operations, the CF has shown it to be quite competent overall with its force projection and subsequent collateral damage. I am more worried about other nation's armed forces, that dont show the same restraint that we do in our line of duty.
> 
> -C/D



So, a few Thursday nights at the armoury gives you the background to speak on the use of force by Canadian and American (because I know that's what you tapdanced around) military forces.

Quite a slap in the face to many US servicemen and women, some members of this site.  Quit being a turd and stay in your lane - you deserved that warning.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Nov 2008)

We must not forget about the Australian contingent in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the other nations so committed.

I thought this INDIVIDUAL was having a personal dig aimed at me, deliberatly hoping for a firey engagement, and no doubt cause a scene, but thats not worth losing my much valued membership on this site. I've come to far to be shot down by my fellow colleagues for an aggressive over reaction. 

Patience is a virture someone once said. I have made the wise decision, and have chosen to put Cog-Dis on permanent IGNORE, as he is not worth getting my blood pressure up anymore. Others should follow the IGNORE train of thought.

Serenity Now,

In the meantime, it's  op:

OWDU


----------



## Flip (24 Nov 2008)

Years ago I had the opportunity to participate in a project, in which the product tracked  a person on stage with stage lights and followed him wherever he went.

With modern digital signal processing it's possible and likely that a system could be developed without the "antenna farm" or racks of computers suggested.

The "tracker" we worked on was no larger than a pack of cigs and processed data faster than a current laptop.  This was a decade ago......

I love technology. 8)


----------



## PanaEng (24 Nov 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Years ago I had the opportunity to participate in a project, in which the product tracked  a person on stage with stage lights and followed him wherever he went.
> 
> With modern digital signal processing it's possible and likely that a system could be developed without the "antenna farm" or racks of computers suggested.
> 
> ...



Hi Flip, how did that system track the person? Visual (IR, etc.), sonar, radio?

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Flip (24 Nov 2008)

The system tracked by sound.
That's why I brought it up.
The whole thing revealed some surprizing results.
The most important lesson is that developers usually don't need the processing power they think they do.
I keep re-learning that... :-[  And the simplest solutions are often most effective.
When you consider the awsome computing power that just lies around the office or home.......
I hope and anticipate you guys in uniform can expect some more innovation in the future. ;D


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

There was a demo done at Connaught Ranges during CFSAC 2008.  The whole unit can be attached to your webbing/Tacvest and is small as your GPS.


----------



## Staff Weenie (24 Nov 2008)

Does the vehicle mounted system have the ability to interact with fire control and turret or RWS control such that it could, say at the push of a button after detecting a shot, automatically lay the weapon directly onto the exact projected point of origin?

I wonder what the Boffins squirreled away in the labs are working on next...


----------



## CEEBEE501 (25 Nov 2008)

But isn't the Boomerang mobile shooter detection system already used for this or is this suppose to be for each individual soldier and more mobile.
For those wondering, this is the Boomerang: Company site http://bbn.com/boomerang
                                                               Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(mobile_shooter_detection_system)
                                                               And Future Weapons clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYgsGoAlb1s


----------



## KevinB (25 Nov 2008)

I thought I had explained that the sound systems are not working...


----------



## Flip (25 Nov 2008)

> I thought I had explained that the sound systems are not working...



And I hope that is changed.

Electronic/computing products usually go through a teething process.
It can take years to get it right.  Products in this "phase" often appear to not work at all and in cases like this, be worse than useless.   

Reverberations and echos can be selectivly ignored.  

Like I said....I hope they get it fixed.


----------



## Niteshade (25 Nov 2008)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> hmmm, maybe like this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXMjh_XbkiI
> 
> notice the "Allah Akbar" got louder after he sees the guy get up ;D
> ...



As an interesting side note (and someone correct me if I am wrong) - the man hit there is a medic. Him and his comrades engaged the sniper, got him (injured) and that same medic treated the sniper's wounds.
http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-976420.php

As for the subject at hand: Cool toy... as previously mentioned: pity it only works once the shot is taken.

Nites


----------



## Marshall (26 Nov 2008)

Wow! this would be a great device if all works properly. Hopefully Canada can get their hands on this someday?

I am not in the military (yet), but I always imagined that a sniper would be a soldiers worst fear.. or at least it would be mine ha.. this could prove useful.


----------



## KevinB (26 Nov 2008)

Keep in mind there have been virtually no sniper instances in Afghan, and even in Iraq very few areas had sniper threats - North East Baghdad (Sadr City and surrounding), Mosul, Fallujah and Ramadi, but other than that, it was more hype that fact.

  Subsonic bullets, and suppressors can invalidate any technology, as has been seen.  

Urban sniping offers the sniper a great deal of natural barriers let alone the devious methods used.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (26 Nov 2008)

CEEBEE501 said:
			
		

> But isn't the Boomerang mobile shooter detection system already used for this or is this suppose to be for each individual soldier and more mobile.
> For those wondering, this is the Boomerang: Company site http://bbn.com/boomerang
> Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(mobile_shooter_detection_system)
> And Future Weapons clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYgsGoAlb1s



BBN is actually building them? That's surprising. It's normally a pure R&D shop.

How are they working out?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Dec 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Keep in mind there have been virtually no sniper instances in Afghan, and even in Iraq very few areas had sniper threats - North East Baghdad (Sadr City and surrounding), Mosul, Fallujah and Ramadi, but other than that, it was more hype that fact.
> 
> Subsonic bullets, and suppressors can invalidate any technology, as has been seen.
> 
> Urban sniping offers the sniper a great deal of natural barriers let alone the devious methods used.



I thought the Taliban employed snipers in that ambush of the French? Since this device employs sound, it can only give a line of bearing for the shot, however if it was networked to several and a GPS, it could triangulate.  it would also go squirrely during a firefight, leading to it being switched off at the wrong time I suspect.


----------



## KevinB (9 Dec 2008)

Colin, I have no reliable info about the French ambush. However given the general lack of reports on sniping from Afghanistan, I would tend to put it down to lack of ability to detect, and engage the enemy on the behalf of the French. No other countries seem to be reporting sniper engagements.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2008)

Thanks, maybe they just employ really bad snipers and no one notices.... ;D


----------

