Lockheed to Develop Advanced Rifle Scope [Archive]

View Full Version : Lockheed to Develop Advanced Rifle Scope

JJ_BPK

05-28-2010, 15:49

I read this and I am a bit worried.

1)Why Lockheed, instead of one of the worlds weapons scope manufactures??

2)My uneducated cost GUESS,, Looks like the scope price will come in at something close to the F-35 spare engine??

3)This scope will guarantee the return of the M1 or M14, as the upper and barrel of the current M4 series of weapons will buckle under the weight.

Lockheed to Develop Advanced Rifle Scope for Soldiers
Army News — By Lockheed Martin on May 28, 2010 at 6:28 am
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

AKRON, Ohio: The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded Lockheed Martin a $3.93 million contract to develop a rifle-scope attachment to enhance soldiers' marksmanship capabilities.

The Dynamic Image Gunsight Optic or DInGO system will enable soldiers to accurately view targets at varying distances without changing scopes or suffering a decrease in optical resolution. The system will enhance soldiers' ability to accurately hit targets at a range of between three and 600 meters.

DInGO automatically calculates the range with a low power laser rangefinder, digitally zooms in on it and accounts for environmental conditions such as wind using sensors built into the scope. It then projects the bullet's point-of-impact calculated from the embedded ballistics computer.

"Current scopes are optimized for a single target range, impacting soldiers' effectiveness and survivability when engaging targets at different distances during a single mission," said Dan Schultz, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems & Sensors Ship & Aviation Systems business. "DInGO will solve this problem, significantly increasing soldiers' ability to rapidly reconfigure optics for use from short to long ranges and improving marksmanship capabilities for all soldiers."

DInGO is based on Lockheed Martin's One Shot Advanced Sighting System, which utilizes similar precision engagement technology to automatically transmit crosswind information to a long-range sniper's scope and modify the crosshairs to display exactly where the bullet will strike.

DARPA awarded Lockheed Martin an 18-month, $9.7 million contract in 2008 to integrate One Shot's new crosswind measurement technology into a prototype spotter scope – a small telescope that is carried by sniper teams and is used to bring far-away objects into close view. During tactical field tests in December 2009, snipers were able to engage targets twice as quickly and increase their probability of a first-round hit by a factor of two using the One Shot technology at distances beyond 1,000 meters.

The nine-month Phase 1 contract, with options for additional phases, calls for Lockheed Martin to develop the DInGO system for use on the M-4 and M-16 automatic rifles. Work will be performed at Lockheed Martin's Akron, Ohio, site, which has a strong track record for developing laser technology for ship and airborne infrared countermeasures, communications, wind correction and active sensing.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 136,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion

Utah Bob

05-28-2010, 17:23

Well, Gaston Glock didn't know shit about pistols when he started.
I guess time will tell.

longrange1947

05-28-2010, 17:53

This has been tried over and over again with no success. I believe I have had my hands on about three different versions since 1987 and none worked. The last one I saw was made by Zeiss. Close but no banana. :munchin

Of course the military is all about technology instead of teaching basic rifle marksmanship that does not require batteries, does not fog on humid rainy days, does not break on impact, and does work every dam time.

Off the soap box. Sorry. :o

greenberetTFS

05-28-2010, 18:29

Peregrino

05-28-2010, 19:14

LR,

If you had the opportunity and could select who should get the contract who would you chose and why?...................:confused:

Big Teddy :munchin

Why do we need it? What does it do that LR's comment about training doesn't solve far more effectively. Cost benefit analysis says we've got better things to spend money on. BTW - If I needed fancy optics to hit a man-sized target at 600M, it'd be time to start looking for space in The Villages. Now if they can come up with a soldier proof, inexpensive, and lightweight thermal/NV for small arms, then I'll be impressed.

longrange1947

05-28-2010, 19:31

LR,

If you had the opportunity and could select who should get the contract who would you chose and why?...................:confused:

Big Teddy :munchin

Big Teddy, answer, none. I have not seen any even come close to working and none will pass the GI proof three steel ball bearing test. :munchin

the problem is we need to go back to the company coming up with a good idea, a working prototype to be tested and a solid test to destruction. All on the company's dime as it used to be. We used to get prototypes and test them to destruction. Now a company comes up with an idea and we, the gov't, spend millions to see if the idea will float. Most of the time they do not. Spend the available money on solid training and let the companies spend on R&D.

Hell there was a project that millions was spent on to do this very thing and it never passed a single actual test. Conceptually it worked when they put wind reading devices every 50 meters down range but did not work with that. Another, that is identical to this one was set up with a series of LEDs in the scope to show where to hold in the scope on the target. Kinda screwed up the view with those not quite transparent LEDs. Again, wind and other factors were not properly read. IF Lockheed wants this project, they should fork over the R&D money and then recoup on the contract. Leupold did this on the Ultra M3 and M3A. They made it, we tested it, and they sold it to the military. Not a penny of gov't money went into it until it was sold.

Spend on training and training facilities. Doodads and bright shiny things comes after training is complete and facilities are up to snuff.

My take on it. :munchin

greenberetTFS

05-28-2010, 19:56

Thanks LR,just wanted your take on it...............;)

Big Teddy :munchin

The Reaper

05-29-2010, 01:25

LR,

If you had the opportunity and could select who should get the contract who would you chose and why?...................:confused:

Big Teddy :munchin

Lake City Ammunition Plant and whoever is the best BRM instruction team out there.

Cut out the COO classes and other silly stuff from Basic and give them about three more days of marksmanship training.

TR

Peregrino

05-29-2010, 10:15

How about just giving everyone more trigger time in realistic conditions? That about of money will buy a lot of ammo to practice with.

Because they're not (or shouldn't be) an either/or equation. I've "played with" a current version of the combined thermal/NV sight. It is a quantum advance that can only be achieved with technology (can't hit what you can't see). Right now we "own the night". Unfortunately, the adversaries are acquiring NV and cutting into our lead. Integrated thermal is the next step but it's expensive and delicate.

I'm not asking for automatic wind and range adjustments - those are always better addressed through training. Nor am I asking for a reduction in the marksmanship training "because this whiz bang gadget makes all that wasted ammo unnecessary". (Don't laugh - industry salesmen say it all the time - as they pursue gov't development funds and then try to find customers for their "solution in search of a problem".)

longrange1947

05-29-2010, 11:25

Don't get me wrong. Technology is a great thing when used properly. Too many are trying to use it in lieu of training instead of augmenting training. The training must go on AND advances must be made.

Instead of going all wazoo and going for the fence, give the soldier now, the stuff that is attainable. A sight that does everything "for" the soldier is not attainable, at least not right now. Now sights that allow the solider to see and fight at night, that is attainable and we have prototypes that work. Expensive and fragile, yes, but they work.

The do everything sight does not work, but it is well loved as it is a sink hole for money. :munchin

The Army is great at finding a new shiny thing and declaring "this type" of training is no longer needed. Then reality sets in, ad that as a fighting war, and suddenly everyone wants a new whizzbang to make for the last one that did not work as advertised instead of going back to the basics and training for the mission.

OK, sorry, too long watching this stuff get over funded and the old statement of, "well we have so much money in it now, we can't let it fail." Sound familiar? Kinda like the too big to fail?

Need a beer and some quiet time. :D

LarryW

05-29-2010, 12:00

IMHO, $3.93M isn't a lot for a DARPA contract, but did they do a COEA first?

Agree with all re: more range time vice buying A/V equipment.

Aoresteen

05-29-2010, 12:35

.....Cut out the COO classes and other silly stuff from Basic and give them about three more days of marksmanship training.....

TR

+1.

I'd go a bit further and give them a full week more with a lot more ammo.

Dirt Gallo

06-02-2010, 20:13

Sorry for being out of touch, but, what is COO class?

Also, something that was said a long time ago when I was told to put the protractor away since we had a PLGR.... "How are we gonna survive out here when you run out of batteries?"

The Reaper

06-03-2010, 01:08

Guy

06-03-2010, 03:04

"Consideration of Others" Mandatory feel good/play nice crap.

TRSo that's what COO stands for; I always thought it stood for Chief of Ops in the military.:o

Stay safe.

XJWoody

06-03-2010, 08:50

"Consideration of Others" Mandatory feel good/play nice crap.

TR

I wish I could say "You gotta be kidding me!" But I believe you. I'm almost afraid to ask what other flavors of pap are they doling out these days?

As a combat arms NCO, I'd have wished for a month more range time in OSUT(and some CQB basics & bayonet training might have been helpful too...) but alas. "They'll teach you all that when you get to your unit..."

IIRC the thermal stuff (TOW2) we had in the late '80s was pretty cool, but much too noisy -and a bit large- for a dismounted unit. I wonder if they have squelched the noise in the new-gen toys.

The Reaper

06-03-2010, 09:14

I wish I could say "You gotta be kidding me!" But I believe you. I'm almost afraid to ask what other flavors of pap are they doling out these days?

As a combat arms NCO, I'd have wished for a month more range time in OSUT(and some CQB basics & bayonet training might have been helpful too...) but alas. "They'll teach you all that when you get to your unit..."

IIRC the thermal stuff (TOW2) we had in the late '80s was pretty cool, but much too noisy -and a bit large- for a dismounted unit. I wonder if they have squelched the noise in the new-gen toys.

Okay.

Roughly six hours of crap interactive video to watch every year on information security. Note that it has not changed since last year. Same stupid shit, takes almost a full work-day to watch it. Again. Can't go to the range till everyone has completed their mandatory annual training.

Sexual Harrassment. Suicide Prevention. Mandatory Fun. OPSEC. SAEDA, or whatever they call it now. Oh, yeah, if Aldrich Ames had just been in the SAEDA briefing, he would never have stolen those secrets and sold them.

I believe that the mandatory annual training (punishment) we are forced to undergo, not related to our MOS or duties, totals 40-80 hours per year.

TR