h a l f b a k e r yIt's as much a hovercraft as a pancake is a waffle.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
EBMT
Eye-based Missile Targeting | |
This is a missile targeting system which does not require
target
painting with any active system, thus avoiding lock detection
by
the target. The system has the following components:
- A processing unit which can be carried in a pocket or
backpack
- A stereoscopic camera which reads the direction
the eyes
are
looking at, which provides the direction to the target based
on
the operator's location, and the lens shape, which provides
the
target's distance from the operator.
- The launcher has minimal computing capacity and pairs with
the operator's processing unit.
- The missile, which also pairs with the processing unit.
Besides avoiding early warning to the target, the system also
has the advantage of allowing the operator to move away
from
the firing position while keeping the target locked or move to
cover retaining only minimal exposure. This reduces the
chances
of getting hit by the target firing back in the direction of the
coming missile and reduces the chance of being spotted after
firing. Another advantage of this system is that the operator
can
drop the launcher, which improves mobility of the operator,
increasing the number of options to get to a safe position.
Command guidance
https://en.wikipedi...ki/Command_guidance
all about telling missiles where to go [Loris, Mar 18 2022]
Ukraine War: What the West Doesn't Understand EP 3
https://www.youtube...watch?v=K5BAZ2bBUzM
Note this is very old information, but the doctrine behind the Russian advance is well-described. [Voice, Mar 20 2022]
[link]
|
| |
So you're saying you have a device that knows the
direction it's pointing via gps and a simple compass
I'd presume, then it judges the angle it's turned to
and the focal length to get the target into focus. |
|
| |
Am I understanding this correctly? |
|
| |
There are a significant number of missile systems which use
operator visual tracking of the target while in-flight. Older systems
used wires (see 'wire guided missile'). Newer ones use radio, or
'beam riding' of a laser. So none of that is novel.
You might say that detecting the guidance would warn the target,
sure ... but how is /this/ idea communicating with the missile? |
|
| |
The idea of ditching the launcher and still guiding the missile is fine,
but realistically that's not something which can be done reliably by
someone on the move from a forward position in combat. So you'd
need a dedicated missile guidance operative, in close
communication with the launch team immediately before missile
launch, as well as the missile while in flight. Unless they're doing all
that by land-line (or the operator is riding the missile), it's
interceptable.
And furthermore, it seems like an eye-based tracking system is
both going to need more processing power and less reliably score
hits where the launch and control are separated from a straight line
to the target. |
|
| |
Yes, [doc]. I see that there was a proposal from 1993 which is
similar to my idea. |
|
| |
[Loris], the idea only proposes a way to track the target
without an active signal on the target and removing the need
to use the launcher for that purpose. All remaining parts of the
process remain the same, namely the communication between
the operator and the missile. The system could also be used
with a third element as you suggest, much like the ground
teams that can be used to paint a target with a laser. |
|
| |
//the idea only proposes a way to track the target without an active signal on the target and
removing the need to use the launcher for that purpose. All remaining parts of the process
remain the same// |
|
| |
You seem to make two claims:
1) targetting using eye-reading instead of scope-aiming, and
2) taking guidance functionality out of the launcher. |
|
| |
Regarding the first, I have little confidence that you would see an improvement in targeting by
an interpreting eyeballs instead of a traditional scope/crosshair aiming approach. |
|
| |
//The system could also be used with a third element as you suggest, much like the ground
teams that can be used to paint a target with a laser.// |
|
| |
Laser-illuminating a target has the advantage that the missile can aim itself, while an off-axis
eyeball looking at the target doesn't convey range information and hence cannot. You could
triangulate using multiple observers I suppose, but I'm not convinced this would be a win in
terms of minimising risk. |
|
| |
Regarding the second... I don't have much of a problem with it except that it does introduce
extra complexity. Depending on how much of a benefit it gives, it may not be worth it. |
|
| |
Passive (visual) sensing on missiles can already involve them being fed a target image to aim for
when they're fired, making them 'fire and forget'. |
|
| |
Okay, originally I had thought this was reading
eyeballs too then I thought I was misunderstanding
it. |
|
| |
There's no benefit from reading an eyeball when
you can just aim something. Measuring an eyeball's
movement of thousandths of an inch to gauge its
aim at something 1,000 yards away isn't going to
happen. An eyeball is a big, sloppy, inexact lump
of flesh whose elements change size every second.
Guess you could insert some kind of readable
elements into them but you're still getting more
accuracy just aiming something. |
|
| |
I think this might have been inspired by those
helmet aiming systems in Cobra attack helicopters,
but those are just binoculars attached to remote
cameras whose angle matches the movement of
the helmet. Neat but not anything particularly
magical like reading eyeballs would have to be. |
|
| |
I liked what I thought this was though so I'll leave
the bun. |
|
| |
Well, wait, on second thought if you threw image
recognition into it you could read the eyes to get
the general direction and have it click on tank
shaped stuff or whatever. Still not sure what
benefit you get though. |
|
| |
//I have little confidence that you would see an improvement in targeting by an interpreting eyeballs instead of a traditional scope/crosshair aiming approach.// |
|
| |
I don't think the intended improvement is in targeting accuracy, but in letting the person launching move away from that place, as long as he can still keep eyes on the target. Although using iron sites (which are capable of communicating with the missile) from other locations would do the same thing and more accurately. |
|
| |
I've recently read an eyewitness account which claimed that Patriot missiles aimed at targets in Baghdad could wind around and avoid buildings. This speaks to the idea that eye-tracking might adjust its target. Not sure what the Russians are doing wrong, except everything. |
|
| |
Militarily they are accomplishing their goals. |
|
| |
How are you defining their goals? Certainly, they are
advancing rather than retreating (albeit rather slowly), but at
what point do you think they will have accomplished their
goals? Regime change? Expulsion of last Ukrainian forces
from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions? Do they have to
find and kill all 200-odd Nazis in the Azov Battalion? Arrive
at the Polish frontier? |
|
| |
The main goal appears to be a really outrageous forum for Putin to scream "I am angry". Wouldn't it have been easier to just start with the nuclear threats and leave it at that? |
|
| |
//How are you defining their goals?// |
|
| |
Right now it's obviously to capture and temporarily secure territory. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they can win the war. Or rather, I don't think they can hold Ukraine against the ginormous guerilla war that's going to fester for the next 50 years if they don't give it up sooner. |
|
| |
But as far as achieving base level military goals like "move the trucks and troops here and keep them there without dying much", they're accomplishing them. |
|
| |
// I think this might have been inspired by those helmet aiming
systems in Cobra attack helicopters, |
|
| |
Nope. [Doc], this was inspired by watching the video of an
Ukranian soldier shooting a rocket at a tank and remaining
completely exposed to maintain the launcher aimed at the
tank until the rocket hit. |
|
| |
// I don't think the intended improvement is in targeting
accuracy, but in letting the person launching move away from
that place |
|
| |
If the enemy knows you are using this system (which they
will), a brief flash of light somewhere nearby (that is "safe"
for a missile to explode) will distract the observers eye
enough to mess it up, unless they have REALLY good focus on
the target. |
|
| |
I think their aim is to make Ukraine miserable
enough to offer them Donbas and Mariupol and
whatever other regions are in between Rostov-on-
Don and Crimea in exchange for just going away.
The rest is just indiscriminate terrorism designed to
those ends + whatever bonus goes along for the
ride. |
|
| |
We really hate TOW missles in land defense. Pain to
deal with packaging. |
|
| |