Making Snipers more effective - New Camo

[2RHPZ]

15 June 2004
Making snipers more effective
Elbit Systems is among several Israeli companies that are working on future soldier systems of one kind or another and the sniper co-ordination system (SCS) brings this new technology to the aid of a singular but vulnerable soldier. While focusing on a target prior to taking aim, the sniper himself will become a priority target just as soon as he has fired his weapon.
However, the SCS brings teamwork to the scene, as a colleague views the scene as captured by a sensor on the sniper's rifle, which transmits pictures to him. At the same time, the second team member can identify the most promising of four targets and advise his colleague of his selection. Vision systems and picture transmission are key elements of equipment for tomorrow's digital soldier.

http://eurosatory.janes.com/docs/eurosatory/images/daily/SCS.jpg

[Deuterium]

With the advent of small and portable acoustical detection systems, the sniper's work will be even harder.

[Flagg]

With the advent of small and portable acoustical detection systems, the sniper's work will be even harder.

I remember reading an article about how Thermal Imagers would make snipers' jobs more difficult/obsolete.....

and a USMC sniper managed to defeat a Thermal Imager using an old umbrella, some aluminum foil, and effective cam...

whether it's actually true or not, I have absolutely no idea.....

but it left me with the distinct impression that with every new "tool" fielded a counter is often found.

The question I have is, are acoustic detection systems really THAT effective and can't they be easily spoofed in a coordinated action?

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Flagg wrote,

I remember reading an article about how Thermal Imagers would make snipers' jobs more difficult/obsolete.....

and a USMC sniper managed to defeat a Thermal Imager using an old umbrella, some aluminum foil, and effective cam...

whether it's actually true or not, I have absolutely no idea.....

but it left me with the distinct impression that with every new "tool" fielded a counter is often found.

The question I have is, are acoustic detection systems really THAT effective and can't they be easily spoofed in a coordinated action?




We did some informal tests in the late 90's using different makes of TI kit. Basically we found that its effectiveness is not exactly cut and dried no matter what the manufacturers specs state. Before the testing people in the community were running around screaming 'the sky is falling' as in snipers are obsolete but we proved that with a bit of lateral thinking it didn't take a lot of effort to defeat the capability.
There are a number of different nations who periodically send representatives of their respective sniping communities down our way for 'concentrations' and in my dealings with them they've had much the same experiences.
I'm not prepared to go into detail about how we defeated TI for obvious reasons but some research into a capability and some liberally applied common sense goes a long way.

Ever heard of the 'gun vs armour spiral' Flagg? look up the evolution of tanks between the germans and Soviets in WW2. They start off with Pkw III and T-26 40/50mm guns and end up with JS 152 and Jagdtiger 152/128mm guns in the space of four years. This is the same thing, for every capability there is/will be a counter-capability.

I've had a little experience with one acoustic detection system and although it did make the job more difficult we did figure out a couple of ways to negate its effectiveness. One of which was to ID the equipment and shoot it first.
Manufacturer wouldn't let us try that one though ;)

[Burncycle]

One of which was to ID the equipment and shoot it first.
Manufacturer wouldn't let us try that one though

p-)

[GazB]

Ever heard of the 'gun vs armour spiral' Flagg?

Not to mention the fact that ATGMs are so powerful that Tanks are obsolete... and Anti Tank Helos are so effective that Tanks are obsolete, or landmines are so effective that Tanks are obsolete etc etc.

For every technical advance there is usually a technical solution, and there is often a cheap expediant solution as well. For example in Afghanistan the Muj solution to the Soviet control of the air and electro optical devices was the simple blanket. Curl up in a ball, throw the blanket over yourself and the Helos will fly past you.

There is a lot of work going on to create quiet supersonic aircraft. The shapes they are designing might make their way into bullet design to make quiet bullets possible. Suppressors to remove muzzle blast will also make detection of the shooter difficult, not to mention remote control noise makers that distract or fool the detectors. A remote control gun station as used in the Aliens film is not exactly impossible and could be left to give suppressive fire as the sniper withdraws. It could be left with a 500 round belt and set to fire in a set arc with other century guns oeprating on a delay to further confuse the enemy forces in the target area.

[big80a2]

must be frightening for terrorists

you see a group of terrorists and then you hear zwump... and they all fall down.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

gazb wrote,

There is a lot of work going on to create quiet supersonic aircraft. The shapes they are designing might make their way into bullet design to make quiet bullets possible. Suppressors to remove muzzle blast will also make detection of the shooter difficult, not to mention remote control noise makers that distract or fool the detectors. A remote control gun station as used in the Aliens film is not exactly impossible and could be left to give suppressive fire as the sniper withdraws. It could be left with a 500 round belt and set to fire in a set arc with other century guns oeprating on a delay to further confuse the enemy forces in the target area

Prototype systems are being tested by the USMC amongst other institutions for such tasks as area defence and key point protection. The one I have seen is capable of mounting light/medium machine guns and medium/heavy sniper rifles.

A google search would give you the specifics. I get mine from Janes IDR.

The problem with employing it in the way you envisage is weight. The tripod for an L7 in the sf role weighs thirteen kgs. Could a lighter one be found?, probably, but the weapon would then lose stability when it fired. As for ammo, fourteen point seven kilos per two hundred round belt, add the gun itself and your over fifty kilos and of course you'll need a fire control system of some kind.
Add a couple more of these systems and your task org goes from a sniper det to a platoon minus.
Also consider the signature of emplacing these systems without detection by the enemy and how your going to retrieve them as you withdraw because you wouldn't leave them for the bad guys to use and destroying them would make you persona non grata with the CQMS. And thats a man you can't afford to be off side with.

As for remote control noise makers, thats already been thought of so modern acoustic detection equipment has software and sensors to differentiate. Battlefields being fairly noisy places of course.

[GazB]

Obviously I wouldn't reccomend it for every mission but in a semi urban area a century type weapon might be useful.

The system I have read about was a Russian system based on a belt fed LMG. The RPD was used only because it was belt fed. There was no finesse or intelligence with the weapon... it simply fired in a reset arc until the ammo ran out. My understanding of the design was that the maximum ammo load it could use was 300 rounds as the way it was designed the RPG couldn't manage the weight of a heavier belt.

It was used to cover a withdrawl and was considered expendible... in much the same way that AMRs like some 50 Barrett rifles were considered expendible and might be left behind (destroyed of course) on a mission that warrented it. For example droppping troops to take out a Scud would certainly have qualified.


I doubt such the RPD solution is perfect but it deals with weight by reduced recoil forces of a lighter round.


The problem with employing it in the way you envisage is weight. The tripod for an L7 in the sf role weighs thirteen kgs. Could a lighter one be found?, probably, but the weapon would then lose stability when it fired. As for ammo, fourteen point seven kilos per two hundred round belt, add the gun itself and your over fifty kilos and of course you'll need a fire control system of some kind.

I very much agree that few snipers want to carry any more weight other than what they need and that as a leave behind distraction weapon it is very heavy and relatively expensive. But against a very sophisticated enemy it is an option.
The reduced round size will reduce the weight over your example but it is still heavy as it is in addition to everything else you need.


As for remote control noise makers, thats already been thought of so modern acoustic detection equipment has software and sensors to differentiate. Battlefields being fairly noisy places of course.

To be effective the "noisemaker" would have to replicate the noise made by an "expected" weapon. To enhance its effect you would therefore want to disguise the sound made by the weapon that is used like a suppressor.

The noise maker/distractor could simply be a very cheaply made barrel firing the same round that will be used for the job with a timer or remote control and set pointing in the right direction.

(I should mention that although I gave the example of Aliens where the gun turret detects motion and aims at the target it is my understanding that the remote gun I have heard little pieces about certainly has no guidance and just fires left to right and then back again in an arc that is selected when the gun is set up... much like the MG was used during WWI where it was simply kept topped up with ammo and slapped occasionally to change the beaten zone from one place to another.)

BTW adding to that weapon spiral in the 50s and 60s missile technology had advanced so much that the British decided that manned aircraft were obsolete and that missiles would do everything. There are many today that think we have reached that point again with missiles like AIM-9X and ASRAAM and R-74 as well as Python-5. Computers and electronics are marvellous things but there will be a palce in the system for real people for some time to come. If a missile fails you get a crater in the ground... when a test plane fails that test pilot will usually do everything he or she can to save it,, so at least in testing aircraft designs the man/woman will remain. Ironically there is even talk of putting test pilots in prototype unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to speed up testing by saving more prototypes...

[Sayeret]

Snipers aern't going to become obsolete because that would be like saying that riflemen will become obsolete. Snipers might be at a disadvantage now but it will change again. Also even if you have an IR device your going to have to still have to search a large area to find someone who could be a mile away from their target. I remember reading about how the United States wanted to make satelites with IR sensors to detect Soviet submarines. It didn't work though because the submarines were too deep to detect with IR sensors.

GazB wrote:

Not to mention the fact that ATGMs are so powerful that Tanks are obsolete... and Anti Tank Helos are so effective that Tanks are obsolete, or landmines are so effective that Tanks are obsolete etc etc.

Like I said before tanks might be at a disadvantage now but it probably won't be for long. Also be careful how much you read into these new ATGMs, yes they are great weapons but they still have a lot of the same flaws as many old AT weapons. Also people are always saying that weapon systems are becoming obsolete, I remember reading not too long ago this thing that said military helicopters are obsolete because of the Stinger missile. It is a MANPAD but the Soviets managed to find out ways to make it less effective, despite that. Along with that I recall hearing that some people say that infantry would become obsolete because the creation of the machine gun.