Trijicon CCAS

[Darrell]

The next generation of optical sights? Continuously Computed Aiming Solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=rlC7kmvLUYo

Looks like an ACOG with rangefinder, inclinometer and gyros all built in. I bet it costs a bunch.

[PawPaw]

Anything that says Trijicon costs a bunch. Are they worth it? Only the buyer can decide.

[randy]

Looks like they've brought the CCRP (Continuously Computed Release Point)/CCIP (Continuously Computed Impact Point) as used in the F-4 40 years ago down to rifle size.

[randy]

Anything that says Trijicon costs a bunch. Are they worth it? Only the buyer can decide.

I'm happy with my Reflex sight. No buttons or batteries, it's just there.

[Jericho941]

Looks like they've brought the CCRP (Continuously Computed Release Point)/CCIP (Continuously Computed Impact Point) as used in the F-4 40 years ago down to rifle size.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised someone hadn't done it sooner.

[PawPaw]

I went over to the video and watched it. Pretty cool. We had sights like that on the M60A3, back late '80s, and I was always impressed with how easy it was to get a first-round hit at long range with that system. I never sat the gunner's chair of an M1, but I understand that fire control system took it to a whole 'nuther level if the gunner understood the "switchology". The one thing you could NOT use the M1 system for is something we called "degraded gunnery". When systems went down for whatever reason, you could still get hits with the M60 series because it had sights that were simply optical. Those sights didn't depend on electronics at all. With the M1, when systems started going down, you took it to the shop. Still, as recent unpleasantness proved, those systems on the M1 were fairly robust and did well under battle conditions.

So, the question: If systems start going down on this new rifle system, do you still have a reticle, or are you just screwed?

[bubblewhip]

I dunno. I'm just going to talk with completely invalid opinions and viewpoints but I'll shoot anyways.

Like the only people who have valid views on this system would be people who do this for a living or did this for a living like Travis Haley. Then again most of those types tend to lean incredibly conservative view points that dismiss a system like this and not trust it.

My take for whatever it is worth (not anything) is that the optic is going at it a wrong way. From the war footage I see in Afghanistan that comes out on youtube channels like Funker350, and playing simulations of ARMA (which again isn't worth much if anything), when a fire fight happens rarely do you ever get those nice times to properly aim at someone and pull the trigger. In ARMA you are spending half your time shooting in the general direction where the bullets are coming from, and spending the other half really trying to figure out where they REALLY are coming from because it's incredibly difficult to figure the latter part out. All firefights I see in Afghanistan on footage end in mag dumps after mag dumps of firing in the general direction of the enemy which isn't totally different than what happens in my games.

I'm almost definite that the RAND study of 12% of all engagement against stationary targets under 200 yards with rifles end in hits is because of this reason, not that soldiers are not capable of hitting a stationary target, but it's more a priority to get rounds down range somewhere around them to suppress them, then it is to take careful aim and shoot.

I really don't see how this solves the problem for the general riflemen because ballistic reticules on the ACOG or HAMR are generally accurate to within 3-4 inches up to 400 yards regardless of elevation, which is more than acceptable tolerances to make a man sized hit if you put the hash mark on the target and shoot him. More over there is only about 7 inches of deviation from a 300 yard zero, from 300 to point blank, so in most cases you really only need put the dot or chevron over the guy and shoot him from 300 to point blank.

Like I said, IMO this really doesn't solve the problem why soldiers have a hard time hitting someone at less than 200 yards even if they are stationary.

The small scale tactics end up for me in my games that the DMR or Sniper either stays with or separates from the fireteam and makes precision shots on identified targets, while the rest of the fireteam provides covering or suppression fire to distract or grab the enemies attention away from the DMR or Sniper, giving a good environment to make nice calm precision shots on target. If the DMR is stressed by incoming fire coming to his position, I'm way more likely to make rushed and jerky shots on target. That's just games though, I have no idea what happens in real life, but I imagine if 100 rounds per minute are coming your way, I don't know how many would notice the 8 bullets coming from a marksman that are actually making the hits on target.

I'm way more interested about the moving targets however. But they never got into detail about exactly how the hell it works.

it looked automatic, if so, how reliable is it for not picking up false positives? What if there are multiple moving targets in your Field of View? Do I have to hit a button to mark the target I'm tracking? Never explained any of it.

I think it would be a much better idea however a much more specific use case for a Sniper team to integrate a laser range finder and a thermal vision system onto an optic WITH a traditional Mil based reticule. There needs to be more integration of range finding systems built into precision rifles as it clears up inventory, procedure, and adds convenience. A thermal vision system I think with appropriate software would be able to do automatic tracking of moving targets very reliably. A heat signature coming out of a body maybe able to be marked and tracked accurately in conjunction with the laser range finder to find the relative speed of the target and give calculations to give corrections appropriately. If the system all breaks however, you still end up with a standard milbased scope and you just go back to basics.

my ideas though, again not worth much of anything.