One of the good characteristics of a sniper is steady hand control, steady body, and controlled breathing because these things can jitter the rifle when firing. So why don’t snipers just use robotic guns that fire when triggered with a remote push button switch? You can eliminate the jitter of the human and just use them as ballast to take the kick back of the gun. Much more accurate and repeatable this way.
It’s possible they simply haven’t considered it, but even if they have it could be that the device is too heavy and/or anything with servos of sufficient dexterity and precision is liable to break or get jammed up with dust/mud under operating conditions.
what would be the fun in that?
On the human side I’m guessing pride is a big part of it. On the practical side there is the weight issue. But even if that could be designed away, servo motors can only make micro adjustments. Human snipers have to lock in on big motion movements of targets.
The modern sniper is primarily a scout engaged in gathering intelligence. The need to cover miles on foot and possibly slow crawling 100s or 100s of yards while remaining concealed makes hauling a robot gun problematical to say the least. Part of what helps a sniper(and his team) survive is mobility.
Shooting is done on targets of opportunity with specific sniping missions relatively rare.
How about a compromise? Gyro-stabilisation. Has that ever been tried?
I don’t think weight would be too much of an issue with a robotic gun since you could use lightweight parts from rc cars/airplanes. Those toys put out more than enough torque to adjust the aim of a gun, especially if you mount the gun on a tripod. For the firing mechanism, you could just make it all electronic, as in fire-by-wire. This would save weight by not needing heavy metal parts to strike the bullets.
Yes, human pride would be a big part of it. As for the adjustment ability of a servo motor, that would of course depend on the specs of the servo and the design of your tripod. A typical sniper team has two people: the person who actually shoots and has a telescopic sight, and the spotter who uses wide viewing binoculars. The shooter doesn’t directly follow the big motion movements of the targets, that’s what the spotter does.
Two things come to mind:
-
Added complexity – more stuff to look after, more stuff that can fail.
-
What’s the need? I suspect there’s a rather low in-the-field failure rate, making this a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.
I would think that aside from the possible weight issues you should take in to consideration the fact that targets for snipers don’t always sit still. A method of firing a sniper being ‘repeatable’ doesn’t have any worth that I can see, why would you ever want to fire at the same spot twice?
Tracking of targets and more precisely prediction of a target’s movements is going to be better achieved by a human than a robot.
I don’t think that this is an issue. Kids can snipe targets that are barely more than a single pixel tall on their screen, sitting 15 feet away. You don’t need the entirety of your arms to guide a movement with very fine motor granularity. But, the real world mechanism that can respond to those fine movements in a fluid manner are probably at odds with rugged durability, even if they exist.
By advancing the technology of the gun design you lower the skills needed by the sniper, which means that many more people can become top snipers and shoot targets at will. This lowers your training and salary costs of your forces, not to mention making it easier to fill empty roles. As for complexity, computers are very complex but they can be very reliable. For a sniper gun, replacing the mechanical firing components with electronic sparks actually lowers the complexity for a sniper because you have fewer parts in the gun that need regular servicing.
Why don’t we just build robot soldiers and let them duke it out on the battlefield?
A tripod? You just removed the insignificant weight of the bolt and firing pin and added a tripod? You just removed a couple ounces from the weapon and added 16lbs to the whole thing.
There is no practical use for such a thing. It would add weight, and the need for logistical support. Who is going to service these servos and stuff when they break? You think the sniper is going to? No, its going to be civilians with electrical engineering degrees and stuff. Good luck getting one of them to your COP or JSS when your sniper rifle’s electronics go out.
Not to mention the new ammunition required in your firing pin-less electronic weapon system. The cost of the weapon would be nothing compared to the cost of the ammunition.
Much more hassle, much much more weight, with very little added benefit. I bet a human would out shoot this thing any day of the week. Especially in a real-world competition that involves movement to the objective and engagements of multiple targets.
16 lbs? I’m not talking about mounting a heavy machine gun here to mow down a whole infantry group. We are talking about a tripod for a sniper rile, say like this one: http://www.precisionriflesolutions.com/apps/webstore/products/show/1129109 which is only 11 ounces, except we want to motorize it. Many sniper rifles have the two prongs in the front already, they are currently bipods. Take out the two prongs and incorporate them into the tripod. You will very likely end up saving weight if you computerize the gun because of the firing by wire.
Properly designed, your servos and electronic equipment would never see servicing by the sniper since they would be sealed from the outside elements.
If your bullets are not compatible with a spark firing system, you could always just use a small solenoid to move a pin.
As for your challenge for robotic gun vs. human, I think you would lose. There are already electronic guns in existence, just not made for sniper roles yet. The electronic guns shoot far more accurately and repeatedly than a human could ever.
It’s not just the tripod, it’s the motor and drive mechanism plus the batteries to power the whole mess.
ETA: Remember, the sniper needs to remain concealed after the shot. Extra bulk or height to the weapon system will jeopardize the sniper and his team.
If the ‘sniper’ is going to be fully automated you would need to include the weight of the video camera with optical zoom and the computer to process the video input and control the motors.
Do they? I’ve handled a sniper rifle that the British Army uses and it was surprisingly heavy. Surprising, as in “holy shit! how do you crawl so far with this thing”. I also used to build remote control cars. There is no way that the torque from the servos that I used to use could move a gun that heavy.
Here’s an example of a sniper rifle: Accuracy International Arctic Warfare - Wikipedia
It’s only 14.3 lbs. Mounted on a lightweight tripod, a motor from a midrange rc car/airplane would definitely have enough power to aim it, especially if you gear down through the tripod.