This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 17:10 by EmericD
Latest 16:02 by Farmplinker
Latest 13:49 by roguetechie
Latest 2:27 by Martin2515
Latest 1:46 by Martin2515
Latest 0:58 by Martin2515
Latest 16-Apr by hobbes154
Latest 14-Apr by renatohm
Latest 14-Apr by roguetechie
Latest 12-Apr by RovingPedant
Latest 8-Apr by Farmplinker
Latest 8-Apr by tidusyuki
Latest 3-Apr by roguetechie
Latest 3-Apr by gatnerd
Latest 31-Mar by larrikin2
Latest 28-Mar by DavidPawley
Latest 27-Mar by stancrist
Latest 26-Mar by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 24-Mar by Mustrakrakis
Latest 24-Mar by poliorcetes
Latest 19-Mar by Refleks
Latest 18-Mar by Red7272
Finally, the most critical part of NGSW is the FCS and its integration into IVAS. Sooner than later, FCS' aiming point will be projected into IVAS AR layer. Or FCS' video feed around a corner.
Indeed FCS and a sound NGSW-R design are going to be backups: if IVAS breaks somehow, FCS needs to work. And if FCS breaks too, then -R needs to be perfectly usable as a pre-NGSW rifle
IVAS + FCS + M1186 bullet and its energy is going to be much more than a overmatch system. Specially combined with more sensors in the battlefield and integrated into systems such as fire weaver or land spotter...it is going to be just too much for any adversary that cannot have such capabilities
it is going to be just too much for any adversary that cannot have such capabilities
How sensitive is it to massive ECM?
graylion said...How sensitive is it to massive ECM?
I wonder if the backup system involves soup cans and a great deal of string? :0
I am presently working on a trigger for bolt-action rifle with FCS and its wholly mechanical trigger, only thing added is a solenoid sear block. If FCS fails you just switch to manual and it works like it was never there.
Considering the amount of effort they've put into our common gear and stuff lately, probably quite a bit less than people think it will be.
The 2016-2020 time period saw a whole bunch of very quiet "updates" to radios for various operational levels where they are still the same AN-PRC whatever number but a new "revision" which is in reality a completely new and massively better system that still has the same designation.
There's also been lots and lots of unconventional waveform and other rdt&e going on that has showed up in presentation slides but has emphatically not been elaborated upon in open literature.
Perhaps more important than that though is they have sorta built things out in a cell structure where you have fully capable local comm net cells that don't necessarily NEED to depend on higher level assets.
So you have these server deals that can run on their own and will attempt to harmonize if when and as they can maintain connections to other nets.
It's all designed to essentially be massively parallel, robust, and agile to a degree that it wasn't before. More and more any and all emitters can also be receivers and can move data if necessary.
They've built out in a way that also lets them add in new solutions and etc as needed quickly and fairly painlessly.
I am mostly concerned about the massive levels of battlefield jamming we see in Ukraine. Actually less worried about higher level assets.
Yeah I have a feeling we're about to find out.
Oh did you know that one of the other rollout clients for the militarized microsoft hololens is the ukrainians?
Lucky that, isn't it?
I would say that it depends on the scale you are thinking about
I would assume that each echelon you go up, you add more and more links to the network and it's easier than one particular link will be jammed by ECM.
I'm am partially wrong for sure, but I think about a new battlefield network like the topology of a smart grid. You have final elements (meters) that send information, and several layers of hubs that concentrate such information with certain capability of rerouting the information. Since smartgrid info network is not supposed to be degraded or attacked as a battlefield network, it does not need such rerouting capabilities as much as our battlefield network
I assume that battlefield network architects are starting from a worst case scenario, with the adversary doing as much as he can for degrading the network. I would take for granted that IVAS is going to work without any degradation at the individual level and most possibly withou any meaningful degradation at squad and platoon level. More than that, it would depend on the rerouting / backing up / redundancy capabilities of the network and the jamming capabilities of the adversary.
Anyways, battlefield network is going to grow a lot in importance with or without IVAS. IVAS is the interface for that instead of a tablet
the rugged successor of a wimax mesh network. Besides, I assume that optical, laser-based backups are going to work at least between LOS hubs and RPA hubs.
A battlefield network is going to be adopted only if its ridiculously resilient
Yes, from what I've seen and been able to dig up they've focused quite a bit on resilience and being able to add, substitute, and etc solutions on an as needed and as they come available basis.
From what I've seen it's very much focused on being able to give you as much functionality as possible even in degraded environments.
Additionally there's indicators that they've thought a lot about keeping all this increased packet radio (or other modality) from making people using these systems vulnerable to being dx'ed and having arty or etc come down on them.
The army went from not too concerned at all about their comms and other radiative sources to very aware that this shit can get them killed incredibly quickly from what I've seen.
But at the end of the day, only a real combat test will tell us if they have done enough