Listening Robot Senses Snipers 303
Dr. Eggman writes "Popular Science has a brief piece on the RedOwl, a brainy-looking flightless robot that can 'read a nametag from across a football field and identify the make and model of a rifle fired a mile away simply by analyzing the sound of the distant blast.' For a paltry $150,000, the machine utilizes robotic hearing technology originally developed by Boston University's Photonics Center to improve hearing aids to sense a shot fired and pinpoint its source, identify it as a hostile or friendly weapon, and illuminate the target with a laser visible only with night vision. The RedOwl, built on an iRobot packbot platform and controlled via a modified Xbox videogame controller, can figure out the location of a target 3,000 feet away, allowing troops to call in a precision air strike."
Real evidence... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real evidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you're going to find snipers not using night vision goggles in light situations that allow for the use of night vision goggles I don't know, but I think the camera is supposed to provide you with an image in daylight.
The whole point of this device is not having to drop a 500 lb bomb to clear out snipers, and of course to stop people from getting shot when they're trying to find the sniper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the civilian in Iraq, it's safe to assume that someone wants your head.
Uniforms mean nothing. The sniper is everyone's enemy and there is no real downside to taking him out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The acoustics would alter the sound significantly would they not? More so then if he were sat right in a window.
I'm sure there would be ways to mess with such a device.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's a pissed off farmer shooting at passing soldiers while hiding in his barn?
Or say an Iraqi kid, hiding in a bombed out apartment flat, shooting at soldiers with a an abandoned AK
Or a conscript cowering in fear amongst rubble taking pot shots with the rifle that was thrust into his hands.
Hell, even a regular grunt who moves into a flanking position to try to pick off a few oppenonts while relatively concealed is a sn
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or what if he shot the robot first???
Or what if the sniper was using one of those robot guns from that online hunting thing from a while back???
Or what if the sniper sniper wasn't really a sniper but a gorilla wearing big spikey gloves and jacked up on PCP???
Re:Real evidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the sniper is shooting, it's a bit too late to prevent him from doing so by making him your friend.
Re:Real evidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, the stuff I've read from milblogs and the like leads me to believe that there are rules about what they will hit. This doesn't change that. It's not like the robot has a missile launcher on it's back that it can autonomously respond with. This makes it easier to have a measured response because you know exactly where the threat is.
If you were really concerned about decreasing collateral damage, I think you would consider this a huge benefit. But hey, don't let me stop you from thinking with your political platform!
Re:Real evidence... (Score:5, Informative)
Not a bad idea though (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I doubt the robot is so perfect as to determine the location of a distant shot (500m or so) with enough certitude as to have the sniper in the crosshairs in a couple of seconds
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I'm sure if there was a sniper trying to kill you, you'd like to know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Macguyver'd (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Real evidence... (Score:5, Interesting)
First, anything to help our troops identify and kill those directly responsible for carrying out attacks on them is a huge benefit. I think counter-snipers are the best solution, but they're few and far between. A ground assault on the building would be a lower-key response, but much more risky to American lives. Precision air strikes are a safer alternative to an assault, but as you point out they cause casualties and are visible reminders of the occupation. But letting a sniper live is never the right answer.
The civilians don't care much if Americans kill insurgents, as long as they only kill insurgents. You have to understand that most of the Iraqis are completely sick of the war. They don't care who's fighting whom, who's blowing up whom, they just want it done, they want us out, they want the insurgents to stop.
Unfortunately, "making nice" isn't going to help. There is only a tiny group of people who are responsible for what's happening. They have adopted religion to carry out their agenda, and the power structure of Islam (imams have the local authority to decree whatever they want) makes it pathetically easy for them to subvert it to their own ends by convincing a few crazy fundamentalist imams to follow them. They use attacks for recruitment (as you point out, if the attacks stopped recruitment would drop.) But the attacks don't stop, because the leaders of the insurgency don't want them stopped. For example, the latest rounds of bombing in Baghdad have been in markets serving all faiths; Sunnis, Shiites and Christians all died from the same bomb blast. It's pretty obvious to an outside observer that the goal isn't "kill the Shiites or kill the Sunnis"; instead it's "kill civilians to pressure America and foster more hatred." And it's also become more apparent to everyone that the insurgency has always been coming from Iran. The Iraqis have no particular desire to see their country bombed into the sixth century, but the Iranian "revolutionary guards" don't have to live there, now, do they?
Re: (Score:2)
But letting a sniper live is never the right answer.
The civilians don't care much if Americans kill insurgents, as long as they only kill insurgents. You have to understand that most of the Iraqis are completely sick of the war. They don't care who's fighting whom, who's blowing up whom, they just want it done, they want us out, they want the insurgents to stop.
You're partly right. Killing innocent civilians is never the right answer. Yeah. a sniper is a serious pain in the ass, and you really really really want him dead. ... but if you take out 5 families with the sniper, you're gonna piss of a whole lot of people and make some of the angry enough to join the insurgency.
As you've pointed out, most Iraqis just want the freaking war to end. They don't care how it ends. They just want it gone. ... however, they mostly blame the US for all the death that's goin
Any amount for killing. Little for relationships. (Score:2)
For President and General Dwight Eisenhower was right. The Military-Industrial Complex has a life of its own that ignores the well-being of the people. The U.S. government spends any amount of money for killing, and very little money on making relationships. It was reported that, of the more than 1,000 Americans in diplomatic service in Iraq, exactly 6 speak Arabic.
Here's my summary of Bush ad
Re:Any amount for killing. Little for relationship (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be better to have invested in corn and really push ethanol. How about investing in batteries and push hybrids. Maybe buy soybean futures and mandat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*frown* (Score:5, Funny)
upgrade for tomorrow? (Score:2, Funny)
This used to be called 'Nintendo Warfare'. I'd almost say we'll change the term to 'XBox Warfare' but it won't be long before somebody mods a Wii controller to do all of this AND make the kill shot to.
The start-up behind this tech... (Score:4, Informative)
The tech behind the tech is very old (Score:2)
The technology to achieve this has been there for a long time. It is just that now military spending is growing again.
Can it hear a sniper BEFORE he shoots? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<robot-voice>IT IS QUIET HERE. . . . TOO QUIET.</robot-voice>
You've spotted the problem:
SNIPER INSTRUCTION BOOK (REVISED)
Seriously, though, one of the 'benefits' (sorry) of an urban insurgency is that the sniper can shoot and displace with ease. Those videos released from the insurgents in Baghdad show snipers firing out the back of a parked car. One shot is fired, and the car drives away.
Advancement in technology? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Always bet on black. [wikipedia.org]
I hope they don't rely on this too much... (Score:4, Insightful)
So if any of our weapons fall into enemy hands, this robot will actually hinder handicap the user since they would be ignoring shots from the other side thinking that it's just FF?
Re: (Score:2)
Xbox controller? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm calling shenannigans on this one. (Score:2, Informative)
Just wait till Steve Ballmer hears about this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just wait till Steve Ballmer hears about this.. (Score:2)
"I like to tell people that all of our products and business will go through three phases. There's vision, patience, and execution."
"Bill brings to the company the idea that conflict can be a good thing..."
"We [Microsoft] don't have a monopoly. We have precision (ch)air strikes. There's a difference."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides the aformentioned Geneva issues (laser weapons used for blinding being needlessly cruel), what's the point? Targeting the scope at the proper angle seems to be a MUCH more difficult issue than you take into consideration. And if you can target the scope we
Re: (Score:2)
When.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solved problem... (Score:2)
What caught my eye was that it was BU doing this research and development. I lived in Boston for a long time (Cape Cod resident now) and still read the Boston Globe. Just about two weeks ago there was an article [boston.com] (beware, Undertone pop-unders) about the Boston city government looking into deploying Shotspotter in Roxbur
What about sound reflections? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Great! (Score:2)
Echo! Echo? Echo. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that it's simple to pinpoint a source out in the open, but it's much more difficult to determine the source in an urban environment with all of the occlusions and echoes caused by buildings, vehicles, etc. I'm sure this thing works great in the lab, but I doubt it would fare as well in real urban combat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Echo! Echo? Echo. (Score:5, Funny)
They've finally developed a flightless robot.
Flightless! It does not fly, AT ALL. Mankind has been dreaming of this since the dawn of science fiction... robots that don't go flying all over the place. awesome.
Re:Echo! Echo? Echo. (Score:4, Insightful)
Asking for it for sure. (Score:2, Funny)
Next generation Soldiers? (Score:2)
I'm guessing this is so that the next generation of enlisted men will already feel familiar with the controls.
If so, smart move.
If not, then I wonder why they cheaped out on the remote?
Farcry had these ... (Score:2, Funny)
The Core Question (Score:2)
Not worried (Score:2)
I have a question! (Score:2)
There is only one problem with a sniper (Score:4, Informative)
Re:There is only one problem with a sniper (Score:4, Informative)
Guys would setup in a good position and stay there for days at a time. Building to building and Building to road fire was common. The problem was partly the UN mandate in the area didn't always allow them to go after these people, and partly that the sniper positions were difficult to assault without causing collateral damage.
In most of the cases that I have read, snipers were taken out either when a building was bombed, or by snipers from the opposite team. Staying in one place allowed the good guys to get a fix and setup their own sniper in a position to challenge the enemy sniper.
The look of the robot (Score:2)
Re:why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't need to be an air strike. Lots of rocket propelled grenades can lock onto a laser designated target.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Important Iraqi politicians can and do get whacked from time to time. It would be nice to know who's doin' the killing.
Re:Kevlar a better investment? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kneejerk reaction: "Bah! New stuff is worse than old reliable stuff" isn't appropriate for concept prototypes.
I absolutely agree that only proven technology should be rolled out en-mass, but developments like this robot are extremely valuable. Even if it utterly doesn't work, that's fine - they'll still learn a bunch about automatic auditory sensors, single sensor location calculation, and building robots.
As for the tactical utility of this sort of thing - it absolutely can't be replicated by armored vests. Kevlar does *nothing* against a high powered rifle. Even if every soldier always wore the armor necessary to stop a 7.62 mm rifle round cold, it would be heavy and hot, and they'd just get sniped in the face and upper leg more often. The thing that's really annoying about a sniper isn't that they can injure someone; it's that if you run into a sniper moving through an urban setting you're stopped dead until you can figure out where they are - this can really slow down any kind of urban troop movement. With this robot (conceptually), it reduces the sniper to only one shot - then since you know where they are you can take them out and keep going.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The capability to pinpoint, with exactitude, the location of enemies snipers is an amazingly useful feat, especially
Negative (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it hard to believe that the thing would really work as well as they claim in a peaceful urban noise environment, let alone a hostile one. Echoes, explosions, and just sheer volume of noise... Still, for an isolated shot in an oth
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree, if body armor were effective against snipers. But the current body armor system, the Interceptor Body Armor System [wikipedia.org] does not provide any real protection against anything larger than handgun fire, as it doesn't quite earn the "III-A" designation [wikipedia.org] for protectiveness, because it won't stop a .44 Magnum round. Looking at the scale, this means it provides no real
Re: (Score:2)
with the E-SAPI & Side SAPI plates attached to the Interceptor body armor, the body armor does provide protection from larger-caliber rounds, like an armor-piercing 7.62mm round, which is designed to provide protection from up to 3 7.62x51mm rounds.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How true this is, I can't say. But: The US Army has adopted Interceptor Body Armor [wikipedia.org], however, which uses Enhanced Small Arms Protective Inserts (E-S.A.P.I) in the chest and back of the armour. Each plate is rated to stop a range of ammunition including 3 hits from a 7.62 AP round at a range of 10 m, though accounts in Iraq and Afghanistan tell of
Re:Body armor doesn't stop AK47 == 7.62 bullets (Score:5, Informative)
Long answer: What the hell are you talking about? This isn't Desert Storm, this is 2007, baby. Check out the Interceptor Body Armor [wikipedia.org], which has been standard issue for all troops being deployed for a while now.
There are parts of the Interceptor Body Armor that are made of only Kevlar for its flexible properties, such as the groin protector that is hanging off the body armor in the picture. However, as the op says correctly, the thin Kevlar is not designed to take anything more than 9-mm rounds, ideally. The actual parts designed to accept 7.62-mm rounds, "stop plates" as some call them, cover the entire from torso from collarbone to belt buckle, front and back. They are made from some rather advanced ceramics. Nowadays, they even issue armor for your sides and your shoulders, two common places some people get shot and end up dying.
We also wear helmets [wikipedia.org]. In the Army, they're commonly referred to simply as "Kevlars" (Typical example: "Uniform for the EST will be IBA with your kevlar, no LCE." Translation: That means you're going to the computer-simulated firing range with your Interceptor Body Armor and your helmet, but you're not bringing your 'pistol belt' or the canteens and ammo pouches that are typically attached to the pistol belt. The army loves acronyms). Anyway, there are true stories of kevlars taking 7.62 rounds and surviving, but even the helmet made out of kevlar molded to a hard, shaped shell is only designed to accept 9-mm rounds.
And thusly return us to the original short answer, that is: Troops in Iraq wear body armor that takes multiple 7.62-mm rounds. Stay classy, San Di-Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: the AK-47 fires 7.62X39mm rounds. Significantly shorter and with much poorer balistics than the rounds that the body armor is designed to handle. And most of the "sniper" rifles over there are either firing 7.62mm NATO rounds or 7.62X52R. Either of which will not go through the SAPI plate into the soldier.
Don't believe the hype, kids. Uncle Sam's g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better yet -- bring a bunch of little $10 boxes (OK. $500 boxes once they go through military procurement procedures), that look like a sniper bot, and even move like a sniper bot, but that's all they do. (maybe you can even slave them to the prime sniper bot(s) so that they swivel in the direction of the sniper when the prime bot senses a sniper (makes it harder to recognize the real 'bot)). That way the sniper will have no way to figure out which box to shoot at.... By the time he takes them all
Re: (Score:2)
The sniper does not reveal his position until he has his assigned target. He may not get a second chance. The robot may have him pegged before it falls. The robot he sees may simply be the bait. The cheap mass-produced decoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thats just one more reason to use a silencer (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thats just one more reason to use a silencer (Score:5, Informative)
Also almost anyone with some skills can construct a silencer. Simplest designs is that you have several metal disks with hole in the middle which matches the caliber of the bullet and those disks are arranged in line, attached to each other with regular interval and covered with a metal sheet.
The wikipedia article is good one on this, although the silencer design presented is more complex what I presented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor [wikipedia.org]
And the subsonic rounds are not useless for sniper operations. If I remember correctly, when USSR was in Afganistan, the insurgents used
The ability of the robot to find the range and distance of a shot by the bang of the rifle, is nothing new. I believe that US army has that kind of hardware already in some of their hummers. It is also possible to know the direction of a shot by only the flight sound of the bullet, but that requires several 'listening posts' and a central computer to calculate, but this only gets the direction of the shot, not the distance. And in constructed areas usually calculating correct direction is impossible as the sound bounces from the walls. I don't know if this robot can still pinpoint the direction and distance from the bang of the rifle, if there is walls offering echos etc, but atleast human ear is fooled about the direction. There is also equipment that tries to find the bullet inflight with radar etc, but my understanding those are not yet in use because they are not very reliable.
I think that this robot is the number one target for snipers. Shoot it first and then you're home free unless there is a second one
Thermal imaging for finding snipers is not new also, and usually the military uniforms are made so that they present as low thermal image as possible. Snipers can be invisible in thermal image also as to naked eye. I don't think that the Iraq insurgents have enough training for that, but probably they will adapt if this robot is introduced in Iraq. Although I cannot imagine why US troops in Iraq haven't used thermal imaging or bullet radars (as I've learned to call them) before..
PS. My background in this is that I have completed basic sniper training from Finnish defence forces and I have read several respected books on the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Doubtful. Most high-power rifles shoot a projectile that leave the muzzle at supersonic velocity -- what you hear is essentially a mini sonic boom, especially at extended ranges. Even if silencers worked as well as they do in the movies (which they don't), silencers can't do anything about the supersonic crack. The round of choice in many a silenced weapon is a .22 short, since its a subsonic round. Guys I know say that that's great choice if you're doing "wet work" with a pistol, but it makes a pretty crap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists are very good at maximizing bang for the buck, and when you get right down to it, an AK-47 isn't that much less accurate in semi-au
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, the percussive sound of the powder detonating in the cartridge isn't what gives away a sniper. It's the sound of the round breaking the sound barrier. The solution is to use a subsonic round along with a suppressor, but then you're giving up velocity and kinetic energy, along with range and lethality.
Suppressors and subsonic rounds are more often used in pistols, and in close range work (e.g., killing someone in the sam
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are no silencers for (military) sniper rifles. What you see that looks like one are muzzle flash suppressors. For a sniper rifle, a silencer would be pointless since they fire supersonic bullets, so dampening the initial bang does next to nothing.
Suppressors are used for a lot of different tasks in the military, including snipers. There is a lawsuit right now about a military contract bid dispute right now (OPS Inc Vs. Knights Armament in a US Navy SEALS SOCOM bid awarded to Knights when OPS Inc. was cheaper)
All the major vendors of US suppressors have contracts with the US military (Advanced Armament, OPS Inc, Knights, Gemtech, etc.)
Advanced Armament have several suppressors designed for military contracts that are for sniper-type rifles (TITAN .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's why the military developed spread-spectrum radio communications. A radio set converted sound waves into a rapid series of short pulses that jumped from frequency to frequency using a random pattern. The idea was that it would be impossible to triangulate the location of a transmitted because any single pulse would only appear
Re:So... howabout (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:cool robot but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)