# Smart Optics for Infantry...



## RetPara (Jan 19, 2016)

I can see right now some over eager Plt Ldr, Co Cdr, or Bn Cdr taking over the optics and directing fire not being within miles of the fight....

US Army Wants Smart Optics for Infantry Squads, Sources Say | Military.com


----------



## x SF med (Jan 19, 2016)

RetPara said:


> I can see right now some over eager Plt Ldr, Co Cdr, or Bn Cdr taking over the optics and directing fire not being within miles of the fight....
> 
> US Army Wants Smart Optics for Infantry Squads, Sources Say | Military.com



and you'll have to add 3 guys to each squad to carry batteries...


----------



## Avenger hammer (Jan 19, 2016)

"The technology would allow a squad leader to put a digital tag on a target, and the rest of the squad would be able to see the tag when they looked through their optics, the source said."

That sounds great as a concept. I think it would be better to put those tagging optics on the crew served weapons mounted on the vehicles. The'll have a higher profile and better view of the battle. Combined with boomerang in the vehicles the gunner could quickly identify the direction of fire and tag it then lay waste with the .50cal. Just my 2 cents


----------



## DocIllinois (Jan 19, 2016)

x SF med said:


> and you'll have to add 3 guys to each squad to carry batteries...



I have, for a number of years now, been treating increasing numbers of ground force veterans who are spillover referrals from the nearest VA outpatient facility.

Common conditions are thing like degenerative arthritis in weight bearing joints, blown discs, sciatica, flattened arches; musculoskeletal conditions usually directly related to carrying too much weight for years.

I am also an Infantry officer watching my higher NCOs get picked off by medical retirement, or asking me what can be done to help them out so they can stay in, almost always for the same sort of conditions.

TrackingPoint can kiss my ass.


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2016)

"We have technology that reduces a soldier's load by ...."
(Next year)
"This new technology will increase the warfighter's ability to...."
(The next year)
"The addition of....gives our soldiers unparalleled lethality on the battlefield."
(And again)
"This new technology will increase the warfighter's ability to...."
(4 or 5 years later)
"Hey! This shit's heavy! You took 5 pounds from us and then gave us 20 extra pounds of gear!"
PEOSoldier: "What are they complaining about? We reduced their loadout by whargarbl...."

Wash, rinse, repeat (joint replacement surgeries).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 19, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I have, for a number of years now, been treating increasing numbers of ground force veterans who are spillover referrals from the nearest VA outpatient facility.
> 
> Common conditions are thing like degenerative arthritis in weight bearing joints, blown discs, sciatica, flattened arches; musculoskeletal conditions usually directly related to carrying too much weight for years.
> 
> ...



Without a doubt, Infantry, especially light infantry is carrying too much weight. With an M4, body armor, MTCH, basic load, it was 60+ lbs, tac on a assault pack, filled with all the extra bullshit food, water, optics, batteries, extra crew serve ammo (40lbs) and I'm plus 100lbs for just a patrol. Not even talking rucksacks and foot marches, etc. The average grunt being 165-185lbs, they are carrying over half their weight before they even SP from the wire.


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Without a doubt, Infantry, especially light infantry is carrying too much weight. With an M4, body armor, MTCH, basic load, it was 60+ lbs, tac on a assault pack, filled with all the extra bullshit food, water, optics, batteries, extra crew serve ammo (40lbs) and I'm plus 100lbs for just a patrol. Not even talking rucksacks and foot marches, etc. The average grunt being 165-185lbs, they are carrying over half their weight before they even SP from the wire.



You forgot to add the chicks' gear that will need to be cross-loaded to the males.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> You forgot to add the chicks' gear that will need to be cross-loaded to the males.



LMAO


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 19, 2016)

$15K per rifle.
Too expensive at this point in time.
We are still to use technology as a substitute for training.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 20, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> We are still to use technology as a substitute for training.



Until we meet a new threat, and realize that tech can't replace skill, and than we will conduct a full circle of relearning everything all over again.

You would think with the current theater of operation (Afghanistan) and the extended ranges that fire fights have been taking place, and the training focus on designated marksman and extending the capabilities of the fire team/squad, that the Army would be highly focused on improving marksmanship and extending engagement capabilities vs the next doodads.


----------



## CDG (Jan 23, 2016)

You know, the last time I loaded my gear into my ruck, I remember thinking, "I wish I carried more shit that needed batteries.  Hopefully they're a totally different battery from anything else too, so I have to carry 5 different kinds."


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2016)

CDG said:


> You know, the last time I loaded my gear into my ruck, I remember thinking, "I wish I carried more shit that needed batteries.  Hopefully they're a totally different battery from anything else too, so I have to carry 5 different kinds."



Cut it down to 3 and introduce SOFLAM 2.0, now in IMAX.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 23, 2016)

CDG said:


> You know, the last time I loaded my gear into my ruck, I remember thinking, "I wish I carried more shit that needed batteries.  Hopefully they're a totally different battery from anything else too, so I have to carry 5 different kinds."



What really pissed me off, was the size of tech had to be. I mean GPS, I mean really the PLUGER replaced by the not much smaller DAGGER. Fucking radio's, holy shit radios...I still laugh and joke with my buddies about how my smart phone does more than 150lbs worth of tech did for me in Baghdad 2004 and does it better. I remember taking brand new iCOM's out of the box, and wonder why they couldn't reach the same distance as my old Motorola's XV 1100's (which are bad ass hand held). But it just always that any tech we got was huge, weighed more than it needed, took some funky battery that only a supply ninja can find, and worked about half as good as the civilian equivalent.


----------



## AWP (Jan 23, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> What really pissed me off, was the size of tech had to be. I mean GPS, I mean really the PLUGER replaced by the not much smaller DAGGER. Fucking radio's, holy shit radios...I still laugh and joke with my buddies about how my smart phone does more than 150lbs worth of tech did for me in Baghdad 2004 and does it better. I remember taking brand new iCOM's out of the box, and wonder why they couldn't reach the same distance as my old Motorola's XV 1100's (which are bad ass hand held). But it just always that any tech we got was huge, weighed more than it needed, took some funky battery that only a supply ninja can find, and worked about half as good as the civilian equivalent.



I'm on the other end of this spectrum: most of my systems are COTS. Spares are simple...once the funding is sorted out. That is an utter nightmare. At one point we had 4 paths depending on the piece of equipment, location, and availability from other sources. Two systems are barely in the supply inventory (FAA and DoD respectively) so ordering spares is painful. I've also seen MIL-STD requirements fulfilled by COTS at inflated prices. While the COTS equipment met the specs, the specs were unnecessarily "robust." 

COTS also brings another nightmare for support: varying contracts and companies. In my limited experience COTS means contractors and all of that system's baggage.

Ultimately logistics is a nightmare and a good supply "person" is worth their weight in gold. Our acquisition process is broken and we're stuck with whatever's shoved down our throats ("we" as in maintainers and end-users alike).

I totally agree with you about civilian equipment/ COTS. Unfortunately it isn't as simple as we think. You're probably aware of this, but I know some of our members aren't. We can't order something from Cabela's or Walmart or wherever because the system frowns upon such decisions. Even gov't funded and provided COTS has support limitations.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 23, 2016)

_"...the Army hasn't apparently embraced TrackingPoint because the weapon systems are expensive and difficult to use in moving-target scenarios. For example, the source said, if the enemy target is moving among civilians, the tag can be inadvertently transferred to a nearby civilian, increasing the risk of collateral damage..."_


Not only do you get to hump all this new techno-shit, you get a front row seat at your own Court Martial


----------



## gafkiwi (Jan 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I totally agree with you about civilian equipment/ COTS. Unfortunately it isn't as simple as we think. You're probably aware of this, but I know some of our members aren't. We can't order something from Cabela's or Walmart or wherever because the system frowns upon such decisions. Even gov't funded and provided COTS has support limitations.


One of the few luxuries with the NZDF being a very small defence force is we can sit back and watch the larger players do with kit and technology and see what will fit for us. Being we aren't committed to a particular supply chain/system be it US, UK etc we can afford to shop around a bit. Reverse issue being finding companies that is prepared to take on. We tend to make use of a bit of COTS where possible. When it comes to MOTS, To save us doing a lot of costly R&D for kit and weapon trials, a common tender requirement is that the item must already be in service with an partner nation


----------



## Viper1 (Jan 23, 2016)

How about they start with simple fundamentals e.g. dominate eye, stable position position, breathing, trigger squeeze, sight picture, etc.


----------



## pardus (Jan 23, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> How about they start with simple fundamentals e.g. dominate eye, stable position position, breathing, trigger squeeze, sight picture, etc.



If we start doing all that, then when are we going to have time for mandatory briefings!?


----------



## gafkiwi (Jan 23, 2016)

I think its another example of a good idea in principle not having as greater application in practical tactical employment as initially thought. One of those many things seen as being a magic silver bullet or "game changer" for the military that is suppose to make up for a lack of basic skills....which they never do.


----------



## pardus (Jan 23, 2016)

gafkiwi said:


> I think its another example of a good idea in principle not having as greater application in practical tactical employment as initially thought. One of those many things seen as being a magic silver bullet or "game changer" for the military that is suppose to make up for a lack of basic skills....which they never do.



What is the standard optic for the Steyr now?


----------



## CDG (Jan 23, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> How about they start with simple fundamentals e.g. dominate eye, stable position position, breathing, trigger squeeze, sight picture, etc.



Sir, what could the fundamentals possibly bring to the table that technology doesn't?  I mean really, what a quaint and archaic mindset. Hardware is more important than humans. Or however it goes.


----------



## gafkiwi (Jan 23, 2016)

pardus said:


> What is the standard optic for the Steyr now?


In general issue still the standard 1.5x. ACOGS for operational deployments with a mix of both across the Infantry Bn's. The new LMT MARS-L will all come with TA-31(NZ) ACOGS as the standard optic across the NZDF.


----------



## digrar (Jan 23, 2016)

pardus said:


> What is the standard optic for the Steyr now?




Trijicon ACOG for the Australian EF88.


----------



## pardus (Jan 23, 2016)

gafkiwi said:


> In general issue still the standard 1.5x. ACOGS for operational deployments with a mix of both across the Infantry Bn's. The new LMT MARS-L will all come with TA-31(NZ) ACOGS as the standard optic across the NZDF.



Cool thanks. 



digrar said:


> Trijicon ACOG for the Australian EF88.



OK, cool.
I did a field ex in Bindoon back in the day, we were issued Aussie Steyrs. they were not the same as the Kiwi ones (even though both were made by Lithgow). The Aussie ones were tinny and crappy compared to ours. Plus I didn't like the absence of the cross hairs in the circle/donut.


----------



## gafkiwi (Jan 23, 2016)

digrar said:


> Trijicon ACOG for the Australian EF88.


I read somewhere they had just signed off on the Elcan DR Spectre being the new standard sight for the EF88.


----------



## digrar (Jan 24, 2016)

Now that you mention it, reckon you're right, those ACOGs must be the left overs from the ones purchased for Afghanistan.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 24, 2016)

Viper1 said:


> How about they start with simple fundamentals e.g. dominate eye, stable position position, breathing, trigger squeeze, sight picture, etc.



1: 4 points of contact with a rifle.
2: Look through the rear peep, focus on the top center of the front post.
3: Aligning the center of the front sight in the middle of the blurry mass.
4: Applying pressure to the trigger, until bang.
5: Hold trigger to rear, until recoil has settled.
6: Reset trigger.

Or something like that....


----------



## gafkiwi (Jan 24, 2016)

Yeah, I think the ACOG was an interim especially for the RAR side of the house for the F88A2's. They seem to be the most common optic at the moment and looks like the Spectre deal has only just been signed


----------

