Considering current military trends pushing toward equipment for detection of enemy optics both for soldiers (such as the US Army's STORM II) and mounted on vehicles, how much longer until we see a renewed interest in the use of iron sights?
Considering current military trends pushing toward equipment for detection of enemy optics both for soldiers (such as the US Army's STORM II) and...
Probably never. It's a neat part of the meta to think about but only a few cunning insurgents will do anything with it.
I don't know. There seems to be a massive interest in passive aiming with NODs, which seems to me would fall into a similar category.
To achieve passive aiming with NODs you need an IR laser. Which gives away your position to anyone else with night vision. As night vision becomes cheaper and cheaper with digital becoming more popular it's usefulness will decline. Unless someone figures out how to tune PWM to certain frequencies that you can program into a variable refresh rate NV device.
that's active aiming, moron
passive aiming is with a red dot or eokek
seems to me a much better solution for passive aiming is what the military is already looking at, basically a crosshair overlay on your night vision system like a videogame.
>seems to me a much better solution for passive aiming is what the military is already looking at
Yeah, if you have a ton of money. The FWS-I costs several thousand, and requires thermal/IR fusion NODs to use.
>and requires thermal/IR fusion NODs to use.
No it doesn't, you just can't use the cool wireless image viewing mode without that.
>you just can't use the cool wireless image viewing mode without that.
...that's what the anon I replied to was talking about you fricking moron.
Ok
I don't see how you zero that and maintain zero without some kind of mated IR device, which then still brings up the fact that you're lighting yourself up. Unless you somehow figured how to make a rifle and ammo combo that is extremely consistent to the point where you have a known zero.
if only they made passive aiming systems that were like a crosshair that went on your weapon and could be zeroed and maintain zero...
>I don't see how you zero that and maintain zero
It uses a gun mounted thermal camera and a thermal monocular, and works by overlaying the image from the gun mounted camera where what that camera sees lines up with what the camera in the monocular sees.
>To achieve passive aiming with NODs you need an IR laser
Are you moronic
What do you think the "passive" part represents?
What would "active" aiming even be in this case?
Why do people insist on talking about shit they know nothing about
> digital becoming more popular it's usefulness will decline
poorgay cope
Optics are too much of an advantage, the trendline there is up further too not down, and detection of soldiers themselves is increasing too. Other counter measures make way more sense.
>Other counter measures make way more sense.
Such as?
Active camo, fricking drone linked smart scopes that makes volley fire a thing again, nano second pulsed lasers and decoys.
>Such as?
I didn't know about them until like 5 or 6 years ago either, but anti-flash honeycombs are a simple effective example. They work perfectly at any higher mag, don't interfere with scope use at all but are extremely effective at not just reducing optic return but also the more common less larp task of keep sun out. Can be combined with a filter too.
Please explain why you think a killflash would make a difference when the laser being reflected off the lens and the detector are in the same location. That's not what killflashes are made to prevent.
Probably never. For one thing, passive optics exist, and so worrying about this particular niche IR laser that can only really be fully useful for long range guys isn't very productive. Especially since such optics are allowing greater versatility and more precise aiming, as well as streamlining and easing positive identification of targets, allowing for greater combat effectiveness in the role of small arms and less friendly fire. At a certain point however, attacks will be overt and concern over enemies with NVG seeing your laser is going to be irrelevant.
Anon, you seem to be misunderstanding. We're talking about systems that use lasers that would be out of band for all but the highest end NODs to detect scopes and red dots being pointed in the general direction of the detector. Not lasers being visible to enemies with NODs.
Like any sort of any other emitter or jammer, you develop a weapon that shoots at the source. This precludes surprise attacks, which makes them worthwhile to invest in especially for low intensity COIN stuff, but they're only really good for that because anyone who's actually threatened by the system can pop it first and then everyone is equally as blind again because it's going to be impossible to armor the laser and sensor to the level it can't be easily knocked out and by definition it's going to be impossible for it to be stealthy itself. It'll be great for things that shouldn't be under attack, like logistical vehicles and troop transports, and things that are always going to be under attack, like a tank, but they're not some big game changer once they're common place enough people are aware of them and have the metaphorical equivalent of a HARM.
laser defections systems don't detect red dots anon. they need reflector in focus (eye retina or camera matrix). They don't detect simple binoculars if nobody looking through them neither, they can detect scopes if nobody looking (light reflects from crosshairs in focus) but at smaller ranges when soldier looks through them. Also such laser detection systems can be countered by optic filters that block their working (NIR) wavelength without compromising operation of visible light devises (scopes). Thermals are naturally immune to NIR scanning because their lenses don't transmit NIR.
>laser defections systems don't detect red dots anon
Sauce? I have no experience with them, but I did experiment with a bright flashlight and some scopes and red dots I have after seeing a thread about these a couple years back. Larger objective scopes obviously reflected more light back, but even the red dot reflected a significant amount, and I could see one still being detected at a reduced range. Human eyes don't really reflect any significant amount of light like a cat's eyes would either.
>Also such laser detection systems can be countered by optic filters that block their working (NIR) wavelength
Are there filters that can block large chunks of wavelengths like that? I remember issue with making such wide bandwidth filters being mentioned in past on the subject of dealing with blinding lasers.
>I remember issue with making such wide bandwidth filters being mentioned in past on the subject of dealing with blinding lasers
Blinding laser may work in the visible spectrum. But of course such laser would visible just to naked eye.
Scanning detection systems work in NIR to conceal them to naked eye but because of that you can shut them off by using filter that blocks NIR, because scopes don't need transparency in NIR. Also these scanning systems are visible to NODs. There are more expensive advanced tech ones they work in SWIR (optical lens glass is transparent in SWIR), to detect them you need SWIR camera.
How are you going to make this without shooting every little glass marble and window pane again? I'm no expert in whatever this moronic and obviously contrived to justify a hypothetical return to iron sights system even is, but if you're going to try and detect passive optics by the reflection in their (less than reflective than average) lenses, how is it going to distinguish reflections from say... A glass lens from say... A little pond? The dirt? A raindrop nearby? anything else which reflects light? It sounds like you're just trying to contrive a matrix to justify your iron sight fantasy. Like Jeff Cooper and the scout rifle.
>how does it differentiate lenses designed to focus light along their axis from random water and glass?
Anon, you might be moronic.
It's a fair question. All these things reflect light. Fly a toy helicopter around a mortar detector sometime.
Do you also think FLIR has issues because small animals put off body heat as well rather than just people?
No, but flir has a dude watching it for shapes rather than an automated defense system looking for glass.
>rather than an automated defense system
What did you see posted in this thread that wouldn't have a man in the loop?
The anon stating that this thing should be made into an automated defense system..
>ctrl+f "auto"
>the first result is
???
And it's not looking for reflections, it's looking for specific returns that are generated by optics that are configured to focus and magnify light sources. If your tiny brain is capable of differentiating between a mirror and magnifying glass by looking at it, IE probing it with visible light and judging based on the returns what it is, a machine can be trained to do so as well.
Sounds fantastical and the contrivance of the moronic.
>I don't know how to do it, so it's impossible
If object reflects flight back it would appear as false target. Thing is objects don't normally reflect light strongly. glass would reflects light back to source if its exactly perpendicular to the the source direction. Rare occurrence. Round objects like marble would reflect but reflection would be tiny as surface perpendicular to light is small.
Thing is optical scopes act as corner reflectors. Reflecting light back if the source is in the field of view of the scope.
Those are some cool looking 3d glasses.
> how much longer until we see a renewed interest in the use of iron sights?
When garandthumb or lucas botkin make a video on it, it becomes the new meta
Anon that looks like a rangefinder? What is storm II and how does it detect optics?
it's a rangefinder, vis laser, IR laser and illuminator, and a digital magnetic compass and gps, apparently
I do think anything that projects any sort of light, infrared or other, or projects any type of energy, will eventually be obsolete because it will paint your presence as much as if give you an advantage. I think thermals are the future. Maybe stereoscopic thermal that gives some 3-D depth of field? Anyway, something that the enemy can't easily detect with their own gear.
some of the russians already have laser warning detectors on their helmets and rifles.
May I see them?
The absolute majority doesn't even have fricking optics.
The pic he posted is a captured example from a Wagner merc
This is basically what is going on.
https://defence-blog.com/russias-unusual-laser-devices-fall-into-ukrainian-hands/
You can just good "russian soldier spider detector" and get a billion hits about it.
>anon sees one picture of said device
>SOME OF RUSSIANS ALREADY HAVE
most russian squads dont have a single sterile bandage between them
It's well known that midwave and longwave IR light is extremely reflective off of glass. if you could find a way to emit this light, one could hook a sensor up to a computer and have it detect reflections and track them.
Anon these scanning systems rays don't reflect from lenses surfaces. They pass through optical device reflect from eye's retina that is located in optical system focus and come back through optical system. So called "cat eye effect".
So go grab some discount rack tascos, rip out the eyes from a couple deer carcasses, and do a little trolling.
Bike reflectors and reflector tape bits would do perfectly.
>it's called "cat eye effect"
>so it works like shining light at a cat's eyes and seeing the reflection and requires eyes beyond the optic
>despite human eyes lacking a tapetum lucidum
this $20 device defeats your $30000 scope detector and has been used to stop reflections off glass for a while now
Contaminate battlefield.
Christmas ornaments would give better field of coverage.
what kind of morono world do you live in, where the solution to technology isn't more technology, but a regression? imagine if we tried to counter HARM missiles by ceasing to use all anti air weapons. A better question to ask is, what countermeasures to sniper detection systems will be developed.
>where the solution to technology isn't more technology, but a regression?
The OP offered an immediate drop in solution. You didn't even attempt to offer one.
That doesn't help when the light being reflected is coming from the same location as the detector.
>what kind of morono world do you live in, where the solution to technology isn't more technology?
It's been that way for a minute now.
>Considering current military trends pushing toward equipment for detection of enemy optics both for soldiers (such as the US Army's STORM II)
I don't think that's what the Storm II is for, and there's already laser detection systems like teh Spider but that's not even close to being the same as detecting a red dot or scope
>they don't know
https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Equipment/Equipment-Portfolio/Project-Manager-Soldier-Maneuver-and-Precision-Targeting-Portfolio/Small-Tactical-Optical-Rifle-Mounted-Micro-Laser-Rangefinder/
>The latest addition to the STORM Family of Systems (SFS), the STORM II, also adds a Ballistic Solver to help first hit probability and covert pre-shot threat detection to help counter snipers and other enemy forces when combined with a Short Wave Infrared Imager (SWIR).
The STORM is a rangefinder and laser aiming device, you've got it confused with something else.
t. regular STORM user
>how much longer until we see a renewed interest in the use of iron sights?
Spam enough threads about it here for someone to bring it up with their favorite eceleb and for that eceleb to do a video on it.
>Provides mounted and dismounted Soldiers with a target ranging and locating capability for remote weapon stations, Snipers, Squad-level Infantry leaders, and Forward Observers utilizing a laser rangefinder and digital magnetic compass.
Interesting, so maybe there is a greater focus on long distance engagement for squad leaders.
It reflects both an anticipation and anxiety for long distance engagement.
Infantry is evolving, we are seeing these changes:
Standard issue suppressors, computerized firing systems, rangefinders.
A stealthier, deadlier infantry that can engage at longer distances unseen and unheard.
Red dot sights were once the privilege of special operations, but became standard for riflemen.
Now infantry are adopting more special operations characteristics, becoming stealthier and deadlier.
This dynamic seems consistent, ideas proven by special operations, implemented by infantry.
Reminder to report botposts.
Heh, I always wondered what was up with this guy in almost every thread. Telltale posting style (no I will not tip off as to what it is). Seemed more like a boomer boomerposting to me
Some other options on the market for anyone interested.
Why does there seem to be so little information on this subject?
Because it has almost no consumer applications, so the information is mostly conveyed through trade shows and other forms of internal posting within the relevant manufacturers and purchasers instead of Youtube videos and other forms of media intended for mass consumption. It's also not sexy or cool enough to get external content creators to want to get involved in said community to carry the information outside of it.
Eotechs bro, we go full holographics and coated glass.
I think antagonistic thermal/digital camoflage will be the future. Essentially stuff that turns a man sized thermal blob into something that looks like you're staring at the sun.
Seems like something that can easily be thwarted with decoys.