Why don't snipers just use robotic guns?

Here’s something I didn’t really notice the first time.
You are not going to decrease salary costs. Snipers are not paid extra money.
You would, however, increase your salary costs because now you would need to pay some civilians a ridiculous amount of money to service the equipment. A civilian contractor working on similar equipment to what you propose makes about 8 times as much as your average soldier. So you are adding the need for more appropriated funds to go to DOD Civilians without reducing any of the cost of soldier’s salaries.
Training costs? Guess who does all of the training on highly technical equipment? Not soldiers. You guessed it, civilians! So instead of some military instructors at sniper school, you propose to replace them with civilians making at leat 5 times what those senior NCOs are making.
Ever part of your proposal is flawed. You are assuming problems, needs and questions that do not exist. And you are proposing solutions to those non-issues which actually create problems. Your weight reducing idea is actually going to increase the weight, and your money reducing idea is actually going to increase the costs.

You are obviously out of your element here.

I’d like to post this, just to shut down all the screaming on the board:

Darpa working on improved computer-processed sniper scopes.

Autonomous Robot Sniper System.

Human snipers are going to carry more tech, and more weight, protestations to the contrary. Why? Because it will make them better snipers.

But the robots will have the last mechanical laugh, whether flying, mounted on a vehicle, or eventually dismounted.

Isn’t anything at all like what the OP was proposing.

Oh what do you know!? A vehicle mounted system. I wonder where I heard that suggested as useful? Oh yea, that’s right… my earlier posts. :rolleyes:

They are most assuredly NOT going to carry robotic guns anytime in the next 50 years. Why? Because there is no point. When you have the technology to do that, you will have technology to do shit like put them on unmanned vehicles or actual Hollywood-style robots. Humans will never carry robot sniper riles because by the time we have the ability to build lightweight, man-portable robot sniper rifles we will have actual robots with rifles. There is no use for the system proposed in the OP.

Not sure what this means, but yea, we will have laughing robots carrying weapons before we ever have snipers carrying robot weapons.

  1. A sniper is useless against a guy hiding behind a rock. What he’s good at is *keeping *the guy behind the rock until the main force gets to him.

  2. A sniper is useless in close combat, which happens more often than you’d think. At 50m a sniper rifle is just a slow-firing gun with a really small magazine.

Well, you are not really addressing my point, in that I am questioning whether there is a particular problem with current snipers and their equipment. So far as I know, US snipers are very effective and the human biology doesn’t appear to be a major reason that a sniper misses a shot.

If the reasons that snipers miss shots is actually due to weather or other factors external to the fact a living, breathing person is holding a rifle, then technology to address those other factors (e.g., better scopes, better estimation of weather, more stable bullets, etc) would seem to be a much better investment than trying to invent a robotic rifle. That’s because there doesn’t appear to be a strong case being made that the stability of the rifle against the human is a very big problem at all.

Bear

What do you see in the next twenty years for designated marksman/ sniper scout in terms of equipment.

I don’t think we can see the end of the M24 or the Barrett ( or other national firearms for that role, Macmillan tac-50 for example). I also don’t see that much change in the rounds , unless we go to a new propellant or an exotic seeker head that’s pretty much sci/fi at this point.

If it works now, it will work in twenty years. The only thing I can see at this point is possibly networked optics, but the energy emmisions depending on what it’s networked to, make that an iffy prospect.

*energy emissions for this purpose, is signals that can be picked up by the enemy and using direction finding apparatus, fixing the snipers location and worse case dropping a regiments worth of 155 mm artillery on that real estate.

Declan

it already exists. here’s a documentary of one in action.

Maybe not, but their training is probably more expensive.

[sup](Bolding mine)[/sup]
Bear, I agree with most of what you say but this probably WAY off. We went from the Univac to my laptop in less than 50 years, from The Wright brothers first flight to the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird in 60 years. When we decided to put a man on the moon we did it in about a decade. All of these things are considerably more complex than engineering small, reliable and lightweight servo system for firing a rifle. Off of the top of my head I can think of a few reasonable solutions. But the reason that the Pentagon isn’t throwing everything they have at this ‘problem’ is because such a system isn’t needed. Human shooters do the job quite admirably and remote robotic trigger pulling wouldn’t increase the overall success rate by enough (if any) to matter.

Not much change in only 20 years. Especially considering we still use a machinegun created 80 years ago, and that a pistol created almost 100 years ago is still considered one of the best.

But as improvements come, they will be huge advances in the scopes. Scopes will have integrated range finders that adjust the reticle automatically for the range of whatever is in the cross hairs. They will have external or eventually integrated environmental sensors which feed the data directly into the scope which adjusts the cross hairs accordingly.
There will be small improvements in the accuracy of the rifles themselves due to mechanical engineering and improved materials alone (nothing electronic or computer aided in the rifle itself). Rifles will become lighter and either retain the performance of current heavier rifles, or show improved performance.

Granted, even after such scopes and newer rifle designs come out, it will be much, much longer before they are universally adapted by the military. This being due to expense and logistical issues and a cost/benefit analyses. These rifles and scopes will be top of the line, but not military issued.

As technology advances beyond that, you will start to see improvements to the rounds themselves, to the point where the nose of the bullet is servo controlled and can adjust itsef in flight. A computer in the scope will feed target data to the microchip in the bullet. Once fired, the bullet will since outside forces acting on it–such as an unexpected gust of wind or tiny uncalcualable variable–and adjust the bullets flight path accordingly. We just started fielding some troops with the Integrated Air-Burst Weapon which shows the Army’s willingness to spend a shit load of money on computer controlled rounds will imbeded microchips. So this isn’t as far fetched as it once was. Plus I believe guided bullets have at least reached the experimental stage? Not sure. But in the next 20 to 50 years? Absolutely. They’ll exist, at least as working prototypes.

So basically the next major improvements to rifles will be the scopes. The next major step after that will be self-adjusting bullets. At no point will we ever see a man-portable servo controlled, remotely fired sniper rifle fielded for military use in a sniper roll. They may easily show up on little robot sentries like on the DMZ, remotely controlled guard towers (though an M2 hooked up to an RWS would serve just as good a purpose and already exists, so why bother reinventing something with a different rifle??) or something else stationary. But not something deployed by a sniper in the field.
A sniper in the field will see servos controlling his bullets before he ever sees servos controlling his rifle.

Again, as these super scifi desings become reality, they will still be very slow to become part of the military inventory. And that even depends on what conflicts the future holds. The more war, the more quickly we see advances in military equipment. The less war, the more these scifi weapons stay in the prototype or concept phase.

Caseless or electronic ignition bullets will be the last thing to come, if ever! Even the servo controlled bullets will be fired through conventional methods of primer and firing pin. I think that by the time such a thing would be practical, we would have completely redesigned the propulsion system in the round from powder to something else entirely.

But being trained on a servo contronlled RWS Sniper Rifle will be done by civilians and the training will cost more.

Sure, but that’s different. War changes slowly. We are still using the same heavy machine gun we used 80 years ago! Why? Because it works.
Only just recently has a replacement been purchased by the military, and it will be another 15 years or more before our current machinegun is no longer in use at all. And another 10-20 years or so after that before no more National Guard armories have it.

If we devoted enough resources to it, we could possibly develop something as described in my paragraph. Though I will say that battery technology will be the hardest thing to come by and the limiting agent in that invention. A battery to power it would either be too heavy, making it not man-portable. Or it will not have enough power to operate very long at all. So maybe the technology for it could be here shortly, but (even though the 100 year statement was hyperbole) it just might be 100 years before such technology is so cheap and simple that the military adopts it. Until then, there isnt enough of a need (if any at all) to justify the cost and resources involved in creating them. They are the stuff of Hollywood and video games for the next several decades.
And like I mentioned, by the time that technology is simple and cheap enough for consideration, it will likely be applied to bullet improvements. Or mounting the weapons on miniMechs or exoskeletons or something.

Wait, so you’re saying that a servo and control system small enough to fit into a gun is more difficult than one small enough to fit into a bullet?

You are focusing too much on the servo technology and not enough on the weight of such technology. When the technology for a super light weight servo controlled rifle system becomes cheap and practical, servo controlled bullets will already be available making such a thing obsolete anyway.

A servo controlled platform from which to mount a sniper rifle would be too heavy to be practical. The technology that would make such a firing platform light enough to be carried around by a soldier like it’s no big deal, to include the power source for such a thing is just as far off as servo controlled bullets. Such that by the time we would have developed one, we will already have the other. Servo controlled bullets do not have the weight or bulkly power source issues that an entire servo controlled weapon does.

Technology for a stationary weapon platform which is capable of mounting and controlling a sniper rifle is already here. Technology which makes such a thing man portable is not!
In fact, what will it take innovation-wise to create servos strong enough to operate the rifle, durable enough to absorb the recoil, stable enough to stay put during operation and firing, flexible enough to mount on non-flat surfaces, all the while light enough to be hauled around by one soldier? By the time you figure such a thing out, servo controlled bullets will be a cake walk!

Not to mention the biggest issue. There is no use for such a weapon system, so there would never be enough funding to create it. However, there will be funding for future ammunition technology.

Google “Smart Bullets” for information on current research and development on such a thing, plus information on where we are now with the technology.

Then google, “man portable servo controlled sniper rifle platform”

It’s not always about what we can invent. It’s about what we need, what is practical, and therefore what inventions get funding.

I still don’t follow you… Guns are, as a rule, a lot bigger and heavier than bullets. If we can make smart bullets, then why can’t we take the smart components out of the bullets and incorporate them into the guns, instead?

Weight. The weight of a servo required to move the mass of the rifle, not to mention durable enough to continually absorb recoil and still function is much greater than required to move the tiny nose of a bullet or adjust a little fin on it. Miniturization is not an issue in technology. But weight is an issue in the military. So, tiny lightweight smart bullets will win over heavy smart weapons firing conventional rounds.
Next, a smart bullet is many times more accurate than a servo controlled weapon station. To the point where it can adjust to gusts of wind not present during the pre-shot calculations, can create loft and travel further, can go around corners or preidentified and programmed obstacles… They can do a lot more, so the resources and funding will go to advancements in servo or muscle-strand controlled ammunition over the advancement of similarly controlled rifles.
What about a smart weapon firing smart rounds you ask? Well when your bullets can go around corners and adjust for anything, there is no need for the servos on the weapon system. So the invention of one makes the other obsolete.
Finally, and most importantly the Catch-22. Guns, as you say, are heavier than bullets. They need a heavy platform to stabilize them when firing. A heavy platform will need stronger servos. Stronger servos need more power. More power means larger batteries.
Heavy platforms, stronger servos, and larger batteries add weight. Once you get the technology to the point where you can make all this stuff light, you still can’t use the ultra light stuff on your weapon system, because then it won’t be heavy enough stabilze the rifle when it is fired. So it needs to be heavy to accurately and effectively operate the rifle. But if it is heavy enough to do that, it isn’t light enough for one person to carry. Catch-22.
Could you make some kind of recoiless weapon system that would then attach to this weapon platform allowing you to use lighter stuff and make it man portable? Sure. I guess. But it doesn’t fill a current need, so there is no point. No point, No funding.
There is current funding in the research of smart rounds. I think five years ago they were talking about using them in aircraft munitions to improve lelthality during dog fights. I believe the tech is also used in experimental tank rounds. There is ambition to get these things down to small arms size. There is ongoing R&D for these smart bullets. There is nothing currently considered for a weapon system mentioned in the OP, or even one adjusted for reality.
Current technology does not make a such a thing practical or even possible. Future technology will make such a thing obsolete. So no servo controlled rifles for snipers.

Except the OP doesn’t place such high restrictions on his question as your paragraph. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it seems he is basically asking about an electronic stabilizer and trigger-puller. As I said in my last post I agree with you that we don’t need it but I don’t think it would be anywhere near as complicated as you paint it out to be either.

Instead of the standard bipod, you equip the rifle with one that had electronically telescoping legs and a laterally adjustable component at the top. This could be controlled by the servos. Add an attachment on the stock that has spikes or claws to anchor it to the ground. A simple servo operated clamp could be placed over the back of the trigger guard and the trigger. So the sniper gets the gun sighted in close, anchors the gun and fine tunes the aim with electronics. Then lets the servos slowly pull the trigger - no breath, no heartbeat.

All of this would not alter the rifle from firing in standard mode if so required. Now I acknowledge your statements of your experience in the field (that you never shot from this position), and I re-iterate that I don’t think such a thing is needed but I do believe you are overstating how hard it would be to engineer such a thing.

It wouldn’t be hard to engineer this. However, as I explained to the OP, this type of system still involves the sniper holding and supporting the weapon and absorbing it’s recoil. Human to weapon contact means that minor things the shooter does still effects the shot. If you are holding the rifle–even if it is bench rested on a tiny, servo controlled bipod–you still need to be concerned with breathing control, and body position. All of these things will still effect the shot.

So as specifically described in the OP, the system would not add much benefit, if any.

To get full benefit from a servo controlled rifle, you need to completely remove the shooter from the equation and have NO human to rifle contact. Such a thing is absolutely possible with modern materials and technology. We already have such things. However, these things are heavy! They need to be heavy to stabilize the weapon while it fires. If you manage to design such a thing and make it light enough to carry, it won’t be able to support the firing of the rifle.
Designing something like this that is light enough to carry, and somehow still supports the weapon through specially designed feet and buffer system on the tripod (and can do so on things other than flat terrain), and having a power system light enough to carry and power the thing for a decent amount of time… this would all take some work, research and resources that will not be put into something that isn’t needed in the first place. If snipers were needed so badly, the Army would push for more snipers and send more people to sniper school. The need doesn’t exist. There are enough skilled shooters to fill the few slots.

The 100 year comment: Later I mentioned that, sure, if Soldiers had something where they could walk around the battlefield with carrying and shooting some weapon controlling it with a joystick and a heads up display in their helmet, there could be some benefit to this but that technology is 100 yeas away.
Even if it isn’t 100 years away, it won’t be common in the military for at least that long–if ever.

So the system in the OP adds no benefit. A system adjusted for what would actually be necessary would not be man-portable or practical to use as a sniper needs to. It could make a nice sentry gun or something mounted to a vehicle. We could do this with modern technology. But that’s it.

Servo durability isn’t really a problem. You’re likely talking about screw drives here, so the actual motor component isn’t going to be taking the impact. It will be the threads of the screw.