Army Next-Generation “Technology”
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 9 months ago
LAS VEGAS — An Israeli company, working with Sig Sauer, recently showed a version of its high-tech, smart-shooter technology that the U.S. Army is currently evaluating in its Next Generation Squad Weapon Fire Control competition.
Smart Shooter Ltd. demonstrated its SMASH Fire Control System at a Sig-hosted range day for SHOT Show 2020. The SMASH is designed to help improve the accuracy of any shooter engaging stationary or moving targets in both day and night conditions, said Devin Schweiss of Smart Shooter Inc.
The SMASH “allows you to acquire, lock on and engage targets” using a weapon-mounted optic and special pistol grip that “allows the weapon to fire only when it’s a guaranteed hit,” he said.
“We are currently competing in the Next Generation Squad Weapon Fire Control competition … with a similar technology,” Schweiss told Military.com. “We are still adapting it, but it’s going to be a pretty good solution.”
Last summer, Army weapons officials invited defense firms to design and build prototypes of an advanced fire control system to go with service’s Next-Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW), a 6.8mm system that includes rifle and automatic rifle variants to replace the M4A1 and M249 squad automatic weapon in infantry and other close-combat units.
Smart Shooter has teamed with Sig, which was selected by the Army, along with teams from General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Inc. and Textron Systems, for the final phase of the NGSW effort. If all goes well, the service plans to begin equipping infantry brigade combat teams with both NGSW variants and fire-control systems in the first quarter of 2023.
The SMASH features a lock button that’s mounted on the weapon’s handguard. The shooter looks through the SMASH optic, places the crosshairs on the target and presses the button to mark the target with a tiny rectangle.
As the information is fed back into the computer, the shooter keeps the crosshairs on the target and pulls the trigger, but the weapon will not fire unless the sights are lined up properly. If the target moves suddenly, the shooter continues to keep the crosshairs on the target. When the shot is lined up, the SMASH will fire the weapon, Schweiss said.
As opposed to, you know, like, um, maybe, perhaps, teaching shooters to shoot.
I’m sure this will work out swimmingly.
On February 4, 2020 at 9:04 am, Fred said:
You can’t have this mere civilian, because Heller.
On February 4, 2020 at 10:04 am, John said:
“…will fire only when it’s a guaranteed hit.” There goes suppressive fire.
On February 4, 2020 at 5:55 pm, Adam Baum said:
Can it measure the wind speed between itself and a distant target, say 400 or 500 yards away, and adjust its aim accordingly? An experienced rifleman would almost certainly do better than that mechanism. I’m betting on the rifleman. They have been at this for a long time, but in 2020 we are still using a version of the original Armalite design.
On February 4, 2020 at 6:34 pm, MTHead said:
The F-35 of rifle systems? Like Vox Day said. Let’s hope the empire dies with a whimper rather than a bang.
On a side note. Spending time at range means your more appt to be a better shot/ hit your target than most military/gov. types.
On February 5, 2020 at 12:12 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “Army Next-Generation ‘Technology'”
Once one understands that the actual purpose of the Pentagon/DOD is to keep the defense appropriations gravy train running, and not doing what is actually best for the troops, their mission and the nation – then everything begins to fall into place.
Funding more training -including more marksmanship training – and the personnel and facilities required to carry such things out, is a good idea, but one which won’t make it out of the starting gate. Why? Because not enough funds change hands to enrich the defense contractors and their political patrons, nor make a big splash sufficient to get that senior officer his next promotion, maybe another star.
Respected writer and defense analyst Barrett Tillman, a long-time observer of the military and someone who has written at length on what the military really needs (versus what it actually gets), dealt with the issue above at length in his book “What We Need: Extravagance and Shortages in America’s Military” (2007).
The Pentagon/DOD always seem to be able to secure funding for that next ‘boomer(ballistic missile submarine), aircraft carrier or jet fighter, but suddenly the well runs dry when such simple things as adequate training for deploying troops is discussed, getting them the gear they need, and finding the time, money and facilities needed to get them ready for war.
A friend of mine was an NCO in the local Army National Guard unit back in the mid-2000s. He took me on a tour of their facilities – and much was made of their
state-of-the-art digital small arms simulator. I didn’t get to see it in operation; it was malfunctioning and hadn’t yet been repaired. Yet, the same guy spoke of how hard it was to get his guys out to do live qualifications for pistol, rifle and the other weapons used by the unit. The funding wasn’t there.
Huh? Maybe if the Guard hadn’t spent a quarter of a million dollars on their fancy new toy simulator – the guys might have been able to afford some ammunition, training time and reps at the firing range.
My friend went on to explain to me that many members of the unit – which in fact did deploy to Iraq for combat operations a year or so later – paid out of their own pockets to receive civilian firearms training, and oftentimes had to use their own weapons in lieu of those of their units, to go to officially “unapproved” rifle and pistol ranges.
Tillman also makes the point in abundant detail in his book – the continued fascination with the latest shiny and often unnecessary toys when money well-spent on the basics would go a long way towards fixing the problems which exist with small arms proficiency and readiness.
The army has made strides in some areas with improved training in small arms proficiency, i.e., the Army Marksmanship Unit does a lot of great work, but overall, at the institutional level, “Big Green” still retains a distressing tendency to look for high-tech, high-cost solutions when simply addressing the basics would do the job.
Building more firing ranges, not just at active-duty installations, but for reserve/Guard use, allocating more funds for small arms training and proficiency, increasing annual ammunition allocations and budgets, and leveraging civilian-military cooperation for training.
Despite having seen this dynamic before – prior to the Great War and again before the Second World War – the military seems reluctant to admit that many of the innovations they take for granted in the firearms world originated on the civilian side.
We would also be remiss not to mention the other factor in play: The Pentagon loves the idea of highly-trained soldiers and Marines who exhibit stellar marksmanship while in the services and serving operationally, but fed.gov doesn’t seem to like it that such training walks out the door when that soldier or Marine leaves the service. High-tech weapons systems that remove the training/skill required of the operator – means that Joe/Jane Sixpack leaves the service with about the same level of training/proficiency as when he/she joined.
It is a disgrace that men who have served honorably in the military and risked their lives in combat for this great nation, are henceforth sometimes labeled as “domestic terrorists” and “security risks” by DHS, once they are back on civvy street. But that’s what we’re come to….