HOME | DD
c-force — A.T.S concept
by-nc-nd
Published: 2010-06-07 04:11:16 +0000 UTC; Views: 11561; Favourites: 143; Downloads: 199
Redirect to original
Description
Made in PMG back in late April/early May.It was for an idea for the A.T.S (Automated Turret System). A system in which an autmated gun is placed in one location while soldiers can mark targets in another (The little illustration in the pic should demonstrate how that works.)
[Update: 7/26/11]
Pay no mind to JDSmith . He plays too much Call of Duty.
[Update: 10/22/12]
Version 2 now available, with upgrades and improvements.
c-force.deviantart.com/art/A-T…
Related content
Comments: 33
now if only the turrets were mobile, but i can still understand their design purpose
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Due to security issues and the fact that parts from various military equipment was used. You'll probably never will, until the higher ups decides to declassify.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
lesigh, and that's how the proof faulters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. Well, what can I do.
Can't exactly show the stuff without risking messing
with the military and getting arrested.
And it's hard knowing that you've created some effective
weapons platform, and not show it off.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How about for real effect you add smart AI transfer.
Which if you don't know chooses the best weapon for the job. Tank = bigger ammo, infantry = smaller ammo. And also chooses the area and destination which means that instead of trying to shot at something while firing in a straight line it will angle itself to attack the target.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Bit of a bump.
I'll have to agree with JDSmith. If the turret's static, then it becomes redundant.
Otherwise, pretty neat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, thanks to a friend in the military and a few simulated missions. The concept has been proven effective and has potential.
In fact... some new ideas came up, so a Version 2 is in the works.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you ask me, attach this to a drone, and give each infantry team on the ground a designator, and you've got yourself an effective weapon.
I just don't see it being practical if it takes two, maybe even three men to carry this and deploy it. It'll save time (maybe even lives) if it didn't depend on manpower.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
An Apache is a highly mobile airborne platform-your mount is ground-based & static.
It has a 30mm rotary barrel cannon on a flex mount, not a machine gun in a turrent.
The Apache's LD is for Hellfire missiles; the gunner aims the cannon using a HUD linkage system.
Apples and anvils. No comparison.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Have you watched the Military Channel? They showed the very things I said. Even the pilot said it had an MG and that it points at whatever he looks at, he even demonstrated it.
Anway... Some psychology lesson. When you hear gunfire, you're either going to: 1) Head towards the source, 2) Run away from it, or 3) Take cover.
If you're gonna attack an enemy position using flanking maneuvers, would you rather use one of these or fellow soldiers?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've read the US Army FM.
The nomiclature is 'cannon, 30mm, rotary barrel'.
And look u the dfinition of a turret; a turent encloses the weapon.
I've been under fire. You need a new lesson.
As to your question, the obvious answer is fellow soldiers. The ability to maneuver is key. Your system is static and pointless.
That's why he US Army mounted its PF weapons on mobile platforms....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you'd risk the lives of soldiers, knowing there's a chance they can get killed?
Seriously... ever heard of strategic placement?
Maneuvers is nothing without strategy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've done it. That is the job of the infantry-to close with the enemy. The 3 Fs-the very basis of all modern ground combat for the last half century.
Strategy is for generals. You're referring to tactics. Learn the words.
Maneuver is nothing without a base of fire. Your ground-based LoS system would be completely useless, and endanger troops lives.
Too much TV, not enough knowledge. Accept that things are more complex than Hollywood makes them appear.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dude... seriously. Just give it a rest.
Just because you say it's a bad idea, doesn't make it so.
I think the weapon system is a good idea
(and I got friends in the military that'll agree with me).
And in the end, it's just your opinion.
Besides, did it ever occur to you that it could use live video feed? Maybe connect to satellite and use GPS? Or use some targeting system similar to the Javelin? I'm guessing 'No' to all of those.
Not many agree with your thoughts on this idea. Get over it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm not seeing a mission for this-LD's are normally used to paint targets for systems deliverede from a distance, such as air-launch missiles or artillery-launched smart rounds.
Your weapons are flat-trajectory basic support. anything either weapon could knock out, the same guy using the designator could knock out using a AT-4 style man-portable missile system, which woiuld be much more cost-effective.
The artwork was well-done, though.
What you ought to do is mate the LD with your repeating mortar.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see a lot of diversion and defensive applications with this idea.
Not every mission requires a missile or something getting blown up.
What about hostage situations? Wouldn't use a JDAM for that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But the parent weapon is a LoS unit on a fixed mount.
IOW, you set it up within sight of the target, then paint the target.
The second step is pointless. Its LoS-the gunner on the fixed-mount weapon doesn't need painting. LD is for indirect fire.
Its a redundant system.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually... after some researching...
It turns out that a similar system is currently in use by the U.S military.
The machine gun turret on Apache helicopters uses the same set up. The gunner paints a target with a laser designator attached to the helmet, and the MG turret points at the same target.
Therefore, the system may not be original, but it isn't exactly redundant (as it seems to be in use).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice job. Despite what some say, I like the look of that laser designator! Reminds me of a gadget used in one of the Battlefield games. Nice description, too
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just something about the designator. Even in the past millenium & century laser designators were no bigger than a VHS camera. Besides it didn't required a stock since it wasn't a device with recoil or heavy enough to be supported by a stock. Neither it needed a trigger, because it was required to hold a button (unless the laser had a hold feature).
Just a quick note about designators.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, there was a lot to consider in the design.
I figured between the laser, video imaging, software, communication, and power... it should be around that size.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't want to bother a lot, even I'm about to delete this account, but seriously. If a PDA is a cellphone-sized CPU, then a laser designator that only needs to put a laser with specific frequency into a point at heck knows how long can't be as big as an SMG.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The LD looks about as big as an SMG to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
isn't that overly big for a device that just points at a target?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
actually "painters" are usually pretty bulky theres a lot of triangularization equip. in them, as well as a large power source so that you don't have to keep replacing the battery. They use a high powered laser usually between class 2-4. Takes quite a bit to run. It also looks like its compact design with a bulpup clip source in, there's even what looks like a firing mechanism, i'm guessing CC self defense SMG? right Andy?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's the description of a mounted designator for a war vehicle.Yet it's well known there exist personal designators for spec-ops to sneak behind enemy lines and mark a target to be hit by either artillery or bombers.
And a laser isn't a that complicated device.Pen pointers requires a small battery to last months. And a more powerful designator would be just the size of a vhs camera. Which isn't that heavy and be be perfectly fitted in a tripod.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0