Israel readying anti-sniper system

The Times of India ^ | July 20 2002 | PTI

[knighthawk]

WASHINGTON: Israeli marksmen and counter-terror squads deployed along the Palestinian areas of the West Bank are field-testing a new anti-sniper system designed for the early detection of enemy snipers, media reports said.

The anti-sniper system, Believer is completing the developmental testing under actual urban warfare conditions and awaits approval for the full rate production, Defence News Weekly quoted Israeli officials as saying.

The system that costs around 2 million dollars per copy, can detect the enemy sniper within one-third of a second tracing the bullet path and it either return fire automatically or reveal the exact sniper location to the tactical field commanders.

[Shooter 2.5]

You're going to love this. The U.S. Army had developed a system like this so they could measure various rounds. They invited Mike Venturino out to the Yuma testing grounds. Since they now had something to track individual small arms bullets, they invited Mike out so they could duplicate Billy Dixon's shot at Adobe Walls. The article was in the September 94 issue of Shooting Times.
To the Freepers who aren't familiar with Billy Dixon, he was in an Indian fight at Adobe Walls, Texas with Bat Masterson. In a lull in the battle, a group of Indians were on a bluff and Billy was invited to take a shot with a borrowed "Big fifty", actual caliber unknown. He shot one of the Indians off his horse, an admitted "Scratch Shot". An Army surveying group later measured the distance to be 1538 yards.

[Shooter 2.5]

The U.S. system uses radar.

[Southack]

Defeating mortar proximity fuses is a different beast from what you and I were discussing earlier. Five will get you ten that you defeat mortar proximity fuses with magnetics, but the "proximity fuse" on suicide bombers is some idiot with a button. You defeat them by detonating the actual explosives rather than the fuse. Sorta like tossing a bullet into a fire or microwaving a stick of dynamite, external energy can trigger explosives in several circumstances. Who wants to be working with nitroglycerine during an electrical storm, after all...

Same concept, writ large for the battlefield.

[Travis McGee]

ping

[Travis McGee]

"Aw that's nothin. I once shot a running jackrabbit at...."

Oh, you already heard that one?

[Travis McGee]

I hope it's gotten smaller and more portable in 20 years! (BTW, I rappeled off that roof in the winter/spring of 1983, and I didn't see anything like that then. The arty battles came later.)

[Travis McGee]

I think that since one is all you'll ever get, the cold bore shot is the one to work on above all else.

[FreedomPoster]

This is the laser based system if I am not mistaken. In other words, it sounds like they can characterize the signatures of different types of returns and put those in a database.

A specific return signal would be matched against the database to try to determine the source. If that particular signature was flagged for an alarm, the user would be notified. That means it would be able to eliminate things like window glass.

I've got to wonder if putting a flat filter lens over the scope's objective would make a scope "read" enough differently to the laser that it would be overlooked. Sort of like when you put a clear filter over a camera lens to protect the camera lens.

[Shooter 2.5]

I think I heard that story and the one with Deer yards.
When I go to the range and the beginners think the 200 yard range is 400 yards.
What has been fun is inviting some of the hot shots to a CMP qualification match. I don't do it to put anyone down. I really do want everyone to get a CMP Garand. Hearing the excuses not to go is just a bonus.
We were watching some beginners shoot and I had to turn away because I was laughing too hard. Then I realized what an elitist $%#&* I was becoming. I have to continue to invite people to shoot. I just don't want to waste my time with people who somehow can hit a gnat at a thousand and then not go to the range.

[Travis McGee]

Good question!!

[Travis McGee]

I regret that I live in Cali from the shooting perspective! I wish I could get out to nice long ranges without driving for hours.

[Travis McGee]

Ping!

[Shooter 2.5]

I still would have to drive for hours to get to a 600 yard range. That's why I don't go. There is one thing though, I have a "deer lease". The good thing is that there hasn't been deer there for years. I can shoot out to 375. Those pictures are labeled, shooting, if I remember correctly. Check your Freepmail. The gun club I go to has a 200 yard range.

[Travis McGee]

I'd sure love a 375 yard course in close driving range!

[Have Ruck - Will Travel]

I've got to wonder if putting a flat filter lens over the scope's objective would make a scope "read" enough differently to the laser that it would be overlooked. Sort of like when you put a clear filter over a camera lens to protect the camera lens.

I had a similar idea myself. A "filter" using plain window glass. A camera type filter, even a clear one, is polished I believe. If so, it would give a similar signature to the polished objective lens I would think. I don't know if the laser would find polished optics behind a regular piece of glass or not. It would be interesting to find out. (although I wouldn't want to find out the hard way that it didn't work)

Also, the effect on sighting through an imperfect piece of glass would reduce the effective range of whatever you were shooting.

Ruck

[packrat01]

Thanx for the ping; now, back to your book.

[Travis McGee]

I think the laser would go right through the flat glass and find the cuved lenses and report back "SNIPER! FIRE!"

[Squantos]

I have experience with laser mic's and if a surface is reflective it is reflective regardless of the filters unless a very powerful laser is used to go through. Such as the Co2 lasers we used to cook off landminds in experimental EOD rendersafe procedures.

I'm still thinking the key to the "best" countersniper systems is "sound". The above pic I posted seems to have a system on the tripods that will, with the use of a puter , trianglulate the source based on the frequency of a set of possibles to include those using a can/supressor/silencer.

Way too many iron sighted possibilities to waste duckets on a system based solely on optics IMHO. Supersonic velocities supressed by a silencer/supressor will fool the human ear as to direction unless your operating in a closed end pipe. But , again IMHO, they won't fool good acoustic sensors.

Just my two cents based on my doubt that a really good systems "how it works" will not be revealed to the masses.

Stay Safe !

[Travis McGee]

As far as the info being close held: after 99 replies, we are still debating the basic principles! I am sure the best of the best is around POTUS, but I wonder about the cost, mobility, and speed to put into action (ie does it need to be tweaked for each new locale before it's effective.)

I also note that tech filters down, and in Sportsmans Guide you can buy NODs, crude thermal imaging devices, laser range finders, parabolic "big ears" etc.

Still, the rule of one shot and move is always to be recommended. The cold bore shot is the only shot to worry about!

[pocat]

Yeah, but is this equipment itself - bulletproof? The unit in the picture has good cover around the bottom, but what about the panel apparatus facing out? For this thing to work, something has to stick out. There's an Achilles heel somewhere...

I'm sure their locations are kept low-key, but if it can effectively return fire to a sniper's position, it too can be hit.

I also saw the shot-finder on the Discovery Channel program discussed above. It worked totally on acoustics. Deploying them in big city hoods is surely underway.