PDA

View Full Version : British troops get nifty techno-gunsights



qaborg
09-10-2009, 10:15 AM
DSEi The Ministry of Defence has announced a new £150m purchase of hi-tech weapon sights and optics, saying that the new kit will "improve soldier lethality" and "support the British defence industrial base". Serving soldiers have disparaged only a little of the new kit - and much of the money will in fact be spent overseas.
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/09/10/gunsight_gadgetry.jpg

Here's looking at you.

The new purchase was announced earlier this week at the DSEi arms fair in London, with prime contractor Thales UK keen to show off the new gadgetry for use by British troops fighting in Afghanistan. The £150m will come from funds earmarked for the UK's Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) programme. Troops will receive the following new bits of kit, which the Reg has since discussed with serving infantrymen:
• Underslung 40mm grenade launchers, which have been fitted beneath the rifle of one man in each fire-team of four since 2003, will now get new sights - and also new "fire-control systems". The 40mm launcher is a low-velocity weapon and has to be pointed high above the target in order to lob its grenades any distance, a process which calls for range to be estimated accurately.
The new fire-control gadget to be mounted alongside the launcher will use a laser rangefinder to work out the correct elevation angle automatically - but our military sources say it makes the rifle/launcher combo unrealistically heavy for combat use, and that troops will find ways to get rid of it.
• Thermal sights will be provided for rifles, marksman's weapons and light machineguns. These can be used to detect hidden enemies and bombs while on patrol, and function even in total darkness - when the regular light-amplifying night vision gear now in use doesn't work. This stuff is already in use by some units, and is considered good by our sources.
• New Lightweight Day Sights will be provided, replacing the SUSAT* sights which came in when the SA80 weapons were introduced during the 1980s. SUSAT was very popular in its day (unlike the SA80s, which were only sorted out twenty years later in a German factory), but according to our sources the new sights are much better, offering improved field of view and a clearer picture. "A gleaming bit of kit," we're told.
• The new thermal scopes, in a popular bit of good sense, have open Close Quarter Battle Sights mounted on top of them. This means that a soldier in a close-up gunfight doesn't need to peer through a scope as he shoots, and lose track of what's happening around him. This gets the thumbs up as well.
• Fire-team commanders will get new "Target Locating System" binoculars containing laser rangefinders and digital compasses, allowing them to mark things they see accurately on a map. This is actually quite basic stuff nowadays, and even in the British army forward artillery spotters and similar specialists have had such kit for some time. It's new for ordinary infantrymen to have it, however.
There is the option to hook up the binos to a sat nav and a data net, so calculating the coordinates of a target and sending them to other units automatically, but it wasn't clear at DSEi how much of this capability will be delivered to British infantry and our informants were also unsure. One does note that the only current option for infantry data transmission, the Bowman section-leader's radio, has a very poor reputation.
• There will also be some ruggedised digital cameras and simple periscopes for peering over walls and round corners without getting shot. The FIST project was originally expected to include on-gun cameras feeding an image to a helmet display for this sort of purpose (those ignorant of shooting realities also thought the weapon might be fired usefully in such a position). It seems that an outbreak of realism has occurred in the MoD.


Overall, then, most of the gear is necessary and popular. Refreshingly, the MoD seems also to be breaking with tradition and simply purchasing stuff from the firms best able to supply it rather than trying to use the buy to subsidise UK industry. Despite minister Quentin Davies' assertion at DSEi that the FIST cash will "support the British defence industrial base", actually it seems that at least half the money will go to overseas firms.

http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/ad/reg.public_sector.4159/government;tile=2;pos=top;dcove=d;sz=336x280;ord=SqkH0MCoZGUAAGCK8MkAAACZ? (http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/jump/reg.public_sector.4159/government;tile=2;pos=top;dcove=d;sz=336x280;ord=SqkH0MCoZGUAAGCK8MkAAACZ?)
The grenade fire-control gadgets and the commanders' target-marking binos (two of the most expensive systems) are to come from Switzerland, for example. Swiss provider Vectronix say they'll be making 92 million francs on the deal, about £53m - more than a third of the total spend, and that's without allowing for prime contractor Thales' cut off the top. The new day-sights, another pricy piece of kit, will come from Canada and the periscopes from Israel. The only substantial UK buy is the thermal sights, from Qioptiq.

There are really only a few criticisms one could offer here. One is the too-heavy grenade firecontrol system, and even that, we're told, would be useful for training grenadiers until they learn to shoot without it. Another is the fact that none of the new gear will actually reach the field until 2011. The MoD says that this is to allow time for training, but given that a lot of the gear is either in-service already in limited numbers or is very simple to use, this still seems slow.
Finally, only a quite limited amount of gear is being bought - enough to kit out 95 companies of troops. The army, marines and RAF "rock ape" ground units together have at least 125 rifle companies or equivalent and can generate 30 or 40 more in some circumstances**.
All the same, it seems like a welcome change from the usual realities of British kit procurement, and all the more impressive in that this is core-budget funding rather than special war supplements.
Apparently there's to be another buy of similar magnitude for comms gear within a few months. Let's hope there isn't a sudden return to business as usual. ®
Bootnotes

*Sighting Unit Small Arms Trilux
**As when a battalion converts its Support (heavy weapons) company into a rifle company for counter-insurgency duties, for instance. Admittedly this is much less common nowadays with the shift from Northern Ireland to Afghanistan.

(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/10/new_optics_gadgetry_for_troops/)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/10/new_optics_gadgetry_for_troops/


Looks like the British troops are getting better kit, it seems that the bad press is having effect on the MOD

Red_Fern
09-10-2009, 11:03 AM
Neat news and a great investment for the UK forces, I think.

DuckRat
09-10-2009, 12:33 PM
I see that they have ELCAN Specter DRs. What happened to all those ACOGs?

martinexsquaddie
09-10-2009, 12:40 PM
acogs are in afgahistan already in numbers

LineDoggie
09-10-2009, 01:22 PM
Is it me or is that SAW/Minimi sight pretty high off the feedcover? Higher than an ELCAN MGO?

Muddlers
09-10-2009, 03:30 PM
quite large scopes.

AIRBORNEJOCK
09-10-2009, 03:56 PM
just from looking at the picture aswell the lad with the minimi -its got a different 3 ****g flash eliminator and also a new hand guard and theyve ditched the bi-pod and using the issue front fore grip with the internal bi-pod.
also the lad with the rifle on the right its fitted with a new flash eliminator ive seen these neing used by SFSG hopefully that will get rolled in across the army.

can anyone id the new sight on the lsw not the usual acog or susat.

muttbutt
09-10-2009, 04:32 PM
just from looking at the picture aswell the lad with the minimi -its got a different 3 ****g flash eliminator and also a new hand guard and theyve ditched the bi-pod and using the issue front fore grip with the internal bi-pod.
also the lad with the rifle on the right its fitted with a new flash eliminator ive seen these neing used by SFSG hopefully that will get rolled in across the army.

can anyone id the new sight on the lsw not the usual acog or susat.
It's an Elcan Spector DR.

AIRBORNEJOCK
09-10-2009, 04:52 PM
It's an Elcan Spector DR.

seen that after i had posted looks good had a read about it

kinney_bmx
09-10-2009, 04:55 PM
just from looking at the picture aswell the lad with the minimi -its got a different 3 ****g flash eliminator and also a new hand guard and theyve ditched the bi-pod and using the issue front fore grip with the internal bi-pod.
also the lad with the rifle on the right its fitted with a new flash eliminator ive seen these neing used by SFSG hopefully that will get rolled in across the army.

can anyone id the new sight on the lsw not the usual acog or susat.
I dont think that Minimi has any grip on it, his hand is covering the 6 o clock rail, thats what I thought the huge round thing was when I first looked but I double checked and its not.
Alot of US dudes have been using those new forgrips on their SAWs if they work well on them then it prolly saves weight over the Bipods

AIRBORNEJOCK
09-10-2009, 04:57 PM
i see what you mean what i thought could be the grip might be something hanging of his shoulder

kinney_bmx
09-10-2009, 05:01 PM
i see what you mean what i thought could be the grip might be something hanging of his shoulder
Yeah hopefully you guys dont have to wait lightyears for this stuff to get to you guys. I am glad to see that they are trying to get you better and more efficient kit.

seasch
09-10-2009, 06:02 PM
The grenade fire-control gadgets and the commanders' target-marking binos (two of the most expensive systems) are to come from Switzerland, for example. Swiss provider Vectronix

On one hand, I am happy that something from my country helps you to fight. Shame, you have to pay for it and that there are no Swiss troops there.

DuckRat
09-11-2009, 05:55 AM
acogs are in afgahistan already in numbers

I understand that they are being used, albeit in small numbers. What I don't understand is why procure another sight (SpecterDR) that does essentially the same job that the ACOG does?

CMNot
09-11-2009, 06:07 AM
The Elcan is going to be bought in a far larger quantity than the ACOG. Plus, the Elcan is a 'normal' procurement from the 'normal' defence budget, whereas the ACOG where snaffled up in much the same way as the initial Minimi Paras where by UOR.

Times is reporting today that the thermal sight order won't be fully complete until 2011.

kalkun
09-11-2009, 08:33 AM
Any chance of getting names of producers of these sights on that picture(except elcan)?

brainplay
09-11-2009, 09:39 AM
I understand that they are being used, albeit in small numbers. What I don't understand is why procure another sight (SpecterDR) that does essentially the same job that the ACOG does?

ACOG doesn't have a 1x-4x zoom where as the Spectre can be used as an red dot style optic or a magnified optic. No need for a flip up magnifier.

muttbutt
09-11-2009, 10:33 AM
The Elcan is going to be bought in a far larger quantity than the ACOG. Plus, the Elcan is a 'normal' procurement from the 'normal' defence budget, whereas the ACOG where snaffled up in much the same way as the initial Minimi Paras where by UOR.

Times is reporting today that the thermal sight order won't be fully complete until 2011.
Yep the ACOG was a UOR (urgent operational requirement) the Elcan is part of the budgeted for, FIST programme.

goose36
09-11-2009, 08:14 PM
why not just get more ACOG's then, are they not happy with them?

CMNot
09-11-2009, 08:23 PM
Goose look at Brainplay's post two up from yours p-)

Little J
09-12-2009, 06:25 AM
ACOG doesn't have a 1x-4x zoom where as the Spectre can be used as an red dot style optic or a magnified optic. No need for a flip up magnifier.

Just been on elcan's website and unless i'm reading it wrong (very possible!) the MoD is buying a fixed zoom (4x) scope...

http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_News/Bulletins/UKMoDSole-SourceSupplier.html

brainplay
09-12-2009, 10:19 PM
PDF on the sight. http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_News/Bulletins/documents/SpecterOS4xSpecSheet.web.pdf

Yup fixed power. Basically they are buying the equivalent of an ACOG but at a 3x higher cost. Range and elevation are adjusted on the mount and not the optic? And unless they go for a new recticle the one I did get to molest only had a 2moa red dot surrounded by a bracket circle (similar to the eotech) and no hash or mil dots.

I think SMGlee did a write up on something similar a while back. He wasn't impressed with the exterior sight adjustment either.

edit: found the other thread. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=140728

DeltaWhisky58
09-13-2009, 07:41 AM
I think SMGlee did a write up on something similar a while back. He wasn't impressed with the exterior sight adjustment either.

I'd put a little more confidence in the military evaluation process of such sights resulting in their adoption by US SOCOM and the British armed forces.

baboon6
09-15-2009, 10:28 AM
Any chance of getting names of producers of these sights on that picture(except elcan)?

This link has the names of the suppliers and numbers of components to be acquired:


http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/20090908_LandJoint_Thales_awarded_stage_one_of_FIST_soldier_systems_contract (http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/20090908_LandJoint_Thales_awarded_stage_one_of_FIST_soldier_systems_contract/?pid=1571)
/?pid=1571 (http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/20090908_LandJoint_Thales_awarded_stage_one_of_FIST_soldier_systems_contract/?pid=1571)

Some data on some of the other components (someone already posted a link on the ELCAN sight)-

The commander's target locator- Vectronix MOSKITO:

http://www.miloptik.se/pdf/moskito_flyer.pdf

The UGL fire control system- Vectronix/Wilcox Rapid Acquisition Aiming Module:

http://www.jag.as/Wilcox_Media/TDS117%20-%20Rapid%20Acquisition%20Aiming%20Module%20-RAAM.pdf

FIST thermal sight- Qioptiq Vipir 2:

http://www.qioptiq.co.uk/Data/Documents/Vipir-2.pdf

Tucker217
09-15-2009, 11:13 AM
Why not just spend a bit on making a new version of the susat instead spending loads on new sights.

ktk.ace
09-15-2009, 12:12 PM
looking forward to surplus susat sights ....

baboon6
09-15-2009, 01:07 PM
Why not just spend a bit on making a new version of the susat instead spending loads on new sights.

Surely developing a new sight would cost more than buying one off the shelf? Whoever designs, builds and sells the sight to the MoD is still going to want to be paid the going rate...

CMNot
09-15-2009, 01:18 PM
Going off the MoD's cost/price effectiveness when it comes to R&D, they should buy a lot more tech off the shelf.

baboon6
09-15-2009, 02:00 PM
Going off the MoD's cost/price effectiveness when it comes to R&D, they should buy a lot more tech off the shelf.

Most R&D has been privatised hasn't it?

AIRBORNEJOCK
09-15-2009, 02:04 PM
Why not just spend a bit on making a new version of the susat instead spending loads on new sights.

the SUSAT was good in the 80s we need a new sight this is the way to go if we develop one itll cost more and take years and probably be ****.
its about time the army started buying things off the shelf that works.

gafkiwi
09-15-2009, 02:42 PM
Its good for this kits comming through for the brits, hopefully they got in and got any design changes for the optics to suit the SA80.

It isnt actually that hard to get some outfits to modify their designs or products. The ACOG that the NZDF is purchasing has been slightly redesigned to suit the Steyr (TA-31 NZ), new reticle, lowered profile for eye relief, Doctor sight on top etc. Trijicon seemed only to happy to come to the party and have adopted the NZ reticle to their line. Its not like it is a "Big" order as well.

It doesnt take much to make a good optic crap, i.e. Bad mount, wrong accessories, not fully tested

PUG
09-15-2009, 02:43 PM
looking forward to surplus susat sights ....

Don't think so.

2495
09-15-2009, 02:57 PM
Don't think so.

In 2006 a whole heap went for sale on Ebay. The Mod classed them as expired and passed them onto the civvie market.


http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/printertopic=1/p=537240.html

PUG
09-15-2009, 03:00 PM
Jesus, that's a bit off. I remember some interesting chap teaching about how they are incredibly dangerous if broken etcetera. Something about a chemical that is dangerous if the fumes are inhaled? Yes they are squaddie-proof, but you know what those airsofters are like.

2495
09-15-2009, 03:27 PM
Jesus, that's a bit off. I remember some interesting chap teaching about how they are incredibly dangerous if broken etcetera. Something about a chemical that is dangerous if the fumes are inhaled? Yes they are squaddie-proof, but you know what those airsofters are like.

I totally agree. A smashed SUSAT is a radiological event, and requires proper clean up - not a broom and a bin bag!

http://www.mtsn.org.uk/files/LSW.pdf

http://www.mkbartlett.co.uk/data/0304SAA14OH.pdf

Report to medical officer and armoury ASAP! selling aSUSAT to a civvie is a freaking accident waiting to happen.

brainplay
09-15-2009, 04:23 PM
I'd put a little more confidence in the military evaluation process of such sights resulting in their adoption by US SOCOM and the British armed forces.

The one listed wasn't adapted by US SOCOM....

DeltaWhisky58
09-15-2009, 07:25 PM
The one listed wasn't adapted by US SOCOM....

Did I say it was - my post was not aimed at specific sights, rather at a particular rather ridiculous post.

brainplay
09-16-2009, 01:03 AM
Did I say it was - my post was not aimed at specific sights, rather at a particular rather ridiculous post.

What was ridiculous about it? The British MoD is making the purchase based on locality not ability to supply. Some people with better experience with the optic itself have made remarks on it which I repeated. Perfectly reasonable to question it but then its not going to matter a hill of beans.

If this is about R&D or procurement then no, I have no experience with British MoD methods only US TACOM through PEO Soldier and ILSC which I get to work almost everyday.

pretorian669
09-16-2009, 03:45 AM
Its good for this kits comming through for the brits, hopefully they got in and got any design changes for the optics to suit the SA80.

It isnt actually that hard to get some outfits to modify their designs or products. The ACOG that the NZDF is purchasing has been slightly redesigned to suit the Steyr (TA-31 NZ), new reticle, lowered profile for eye relief, Doctor sight on top etc. Trijicon seemed only to happy to come to the party and have adopted the NZ reticle to their line. Its not like it is a "Big" order as well.

It doesnt take much to make a good optic crap, i.e. Bad mount, wrong accessories, not fully tested

Any pics of the Kiwi Acog reticle?
Israeli TA01s have different reticles too.
BTW talking about Trijicon and Israel AFAIK IDF is the only one using 3x Acogs as magnifiers for red dots...

gafkiwi
09-16-2009, 03:54 AM
[QUOTE=pretorian669;4414616]Any pics of the Kiwi Acog reticle?
Israeli TA01s have different reticles too.QUOTE]

Not one handy, basically finer detail, removed some of the elevation indicators to declutter it abit, and stadia lines along the crosshair to assist with aim off etc

goose36
09-17-2009, 02:32 AM
I'd put a little more confidence in the military evaluation process of such sights resulting in their adoption by US SOCOM and the British armed forces.

i wouldn't!!