Canada's Next-Generation Military Smart Gun Unveiled 75
Zothecula writes Looking every bit like a weapon from a science fiction movie, the latest integrated assault rifle prototype being developed for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is packed with some very smart weapons technology. Along with the ability to fire new lightweight telescoped ammunition, and a secondary effects module that adds either a three-round 40 mm grenade launcher or a 12-gauge shotgun, there is also a NATO-standard power and data bus to allow the attachment of smart accessories, such as electro-optical sights and position sensors that connect to command and control networks.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
Good. Now we need to redesign the cockpit of the F-35 so that one of these rifles with MP3 player attached can be mounted in it so the pilots can listen to music as they taxi around.
Smart gun but , (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
With a correct dictator it could be, but finding a good person and that person being willing to be a dictator is really hard. Usually only assholes want to be dictators, the good guys don't make it for some reason, which makes the illusion that dictatorship is bad.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The people in office are the people your overlords want it office.
They are also the people we voted for.
If the "overlords" didn't exist, who do you think would be running things in the libertarian and/or socialist utopia that you envision?
Re: (Score:1)
That problem was solved 220 years ago. Since then the problem has been dumb voters. Democracy, as they say, is the government you deserve.
One could argue it's not true for Sweden.
Currently we're ruled by an alternative which got less than 38% of the votes.
On the other hand about 49% (I think) of the other elected people voted for that to happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Or well, it was budget votes and it's more like 40+% didn't voted for their own budget but rather let this one pass.
Re: (Score:2)
There were people who voted for Johnson for President in 1964 under the assumption that he wouldn't escalate the Vietnam War (Goldwater almost certainly would have). Voting is no protection when the candidates either lie about their intentions or change their minds once in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask the voters? :P
Xenomorphs (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to introduce you to a personal friend of mine. It's the M-41A pulse rifle, with over and under pump action grenade launcher.
Re: (Score:2)
Hicks: I like to keep this handy... for close encounters.
Frost: I heard *that.*
Useless (Score:1)
I bet this was not designed by a soldier. Try dragging all that high-tech through the mud and sand then see if it still works. Extra brownie points if the battery powering it all doesn't die before the owner of the weapon. Hint: The reason why the AK-47 is so successful is because it's SIMPLE and it can easily be repaired in the field.
Anybody remember the scene in 'Starship Troopers' where the weapon malfunctions in training?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They've done a lot of work to make it lighter than existing weaponry.
No. TFA says it is lighter than a C7 + M203. So they made it lighter than two existing weapons strapped together. A C7 is basically a Canadian M16. I know from personal experience that an M16 + M203 is NOT a "light" combination, especially when you are also lugging 10kg of two different types of ammunition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm somewhat skeptical no one has tried this alternative. Hell they could sell it to police departments!
There must be some technical issue blocking it, e.g., the explosive power doesn't quite scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is sharing targetting info useful enough to justify having to recharge your gun every X hours, and risk suffering a software crash every now and then? And what if your adversary intercepts all that valuable targetting info you are broadcasting, and now know exactly where all your guys are and where they are aiming?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Encrypting the data transmitted is nearly trivial. There are numerous encryption algorithms out there that can sufficiently prevent eavesdropping of the data. Techniques beyond mere encryption can further prevent jamming, false data being sent, and such that can be equal security issues.
What concerns me more is that these rifles will be sending out radio beacons of their location. Various techniques can be used to keep power output low, spread the data out so it doesn't stay on a single frequency, and ot
Re:Useless (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet this was not designed by a soldier. Try dragging all that high-tech through the mud and sand then see if it still works.
That was my first thought, although I was a Marine, not a soldier. To a grunt, the most important characteristics in a weapon are:
1. Reliability
2. Weight
3. Maintenance
They are carrying these things for 16 or 18 hours per day, along with the ammunition. That is exhausting, and exhausted soldiers are not alert and make dumb mistakes that get people killed. When they finally stop the patrol, and go into a defensive position, they do not want to spend the next two hours disassembling and cleaning some complicated piece of equipment. Not every man needs a grenade launcher. One or two per squad is enough, and it is better if it is a separate weapon. I have never met a single grunt that believes replacing the M79 with the M203 was a good idea. Yet TFA compares this new weapon to the M203.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a Marine, not a soldier.
Don't take this the wrong way: what's the difference? A sincere question, not a snark.
I do understand that each of the branches of the US military has its own sense of pride in its mission and mandate, and wants to distinguish itself from others. How do Marines distinguish themselves from other military roles, particularly soldiers?
Please understand, I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I'm genuinely curious to hear about how Marines and soldiers see each other.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm neither, so take this with a boulder of salt.
The difference between Soldiers and Marines is that the Soldier generally has a lot more support, and operated in larger numbers.
When the Army goes in, there is generally close air support, artillery support, logistics support, MPs, lots of infrastructure, lots of hardware, Engineer support, etc..
When Marines go in, they generally have a whole lot less, if any, of any of that (No implied slight to the Navy intended). Hence the credo "Every Marine is a riflem
Re: (Score:2)
I'm neither, so take this with a boulder of salt.
Arguably that could make you more impartial.
I think your point is that Marines are involved earlier in a conflict, before other infrastructure has arrived. As are other special units, like Army Rangers and Navy Seals, with all due props to them and their respective training and qualifications.
Does that help?
If I understood you correctly, then yes, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
A scene from a shit film should not be brought up as an example of *anything* happening in reality.
Smart? (Score:3, Funny)
Does it come with optional voice synthesizer to negotiate peaceful solutions on behalf of the soldier?
Can it distinguish between a gun and a cell phone or a banana and optionally refuse to fire?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand, just because the suspect is not holding a firearm does not mean they are incapable of killing an officer/soldier, nor does it mean that use of a firearm to stop the suspect is somehow illegal, unethical, or otherwise improper. Blunt objects, fists, and feet kill more people than handguns.
Also, what if the cell phone is the trigger to a bomb? Or a gun in disguise?
Here's another idea, if a person comes face to face to someone in uniform and pointing a rifle at them does not immediately e
Smart gun equals (Score:2)
More things for the private soldier to break. And for those of you with no military experience, your average private can break ANYTHING....
Alternatively, as we found in WW2 and later wars, it means more things to throw away as useless weight that your private is not going to want to lug around on the off chance it might come in useful once a year or so....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to guess the average private will appreciate being able to, say, accurately see and target things in the dark, or have a handy grenade launcher available. The reason a lot of this high-tech weaponry costs so much is (in what I'd guess is the order of importance):
a) Making it absolutely reliable under any field conditions
b) Making it "private-proof" (nearly unbreakable)
c) Making it as light as possible
Naturally, only time (and soldiers in the field) will tell whether they've succeeded, but given t
Re: (Score:2)
Really? The average private, with a grenade launcher and night vision? Do you read what you're typing?
Argue all you want with me, but it's the Canadian military that will be handing our these weapons to its infantrymen. Besides, I'd guess these weapons are probably simpler to handle in the field than your average 18th century flintlock musket. Those average soldiers will do just fine.
problem with smart guns (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
8. moving parts can be lubricated with either gun oil or maple syrup. ... this stuff practically writes itself.
9. bayonet lug will accept a non-lethal Shawinigan Handshake module
10. Canadian flag on the butt to ensure that our troops aren't mistaken for Americans
Re: (Score:2)
11. Optional Coffee Crisp ordinance, for spreading nonlethal goodwill.
12. Homo milk dispenser, for confusing the hell out of American colleagues.
13. Used bullet-casings redeemable for merchandise at any Canadian Tire.
Re: (Score:2)
6. 40mm launcher can fire traditional incendiary and gas ordinances as well as store timbits.
Hm. But can it launch timbits? Now that would be "friendly fire."
Let me guess at the model number (Score:4, Funny)
Highly unlikely this will ever show up. (Score:2)
Not a member of the Canadian Forces nor am I even a resident of that nation. But I've several friends. The issue here is that most of the equipment that the Canadian military has is completely outdated and work out. Mostly because there is no political will to purchase replacement equipment. In times past the military has had serious issues keeping tired on their vehicles because everything is so old that they can't get replacement tires for them. They've slowly had to cannibalize their small fleet of
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I do realize that the entire reason for this new weapons system is to at least get better rifles into the hands of the soldiers up there. I just don't think it'll ever get through the politicized purchasing process.
The entire reason for this new weapons system is to secure lucrative contracts for its manufacturers. If they wanted better rifles into the hands of the soldiers they would be looking into affordable tried and tested weaponry instead of new high tech ones that will almost inevitably lead to decades of expensive 'teething problems'.
Just Wait (Score:2)
Just wait until these get left behind in Iraq and Syria. Look out!
Is there a Polite Request launcher? (Score:1)
But will the guns (Score:2)
XM29 (Score:2)
It's basically the same idea behind the USA XM29 OICW [wikipedia.org] prototype. Which got cancelled to be developed as two separate programs. Of which the rifle was cancelled and the grenade launcher lives as the XM25 CDTE [wikipedia.org]. Which is probably to be cancelled too.
The South Koreans and the Chinese have something similar to this already in service. The Daewoo K-11 [wikipedia.org] and the ZH-05 [gizmodo.com].
Sounds perfect (Score:1)
Wait, Canada has a Military? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Like, you mean like for war [satirewire.com]?
Does Canada know?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
causes dread to the enemy.
AKA some poor m00se.
Bullpup configuration (Score:1)