DARPA Developing Super Scope

Iddo Genuth writes "Researchers at the Strategic Technology Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are developing new high-resolution scopes that extend the range of viable image recognition and reduce atmospheric interference. Still in the early prototyping stage, DARPA hopes the new optical system (PPT presentation) will eventually result in a decrease of friendly fire incidents and collateral damage from military operations. 'Called the Super-Resolution Vision System (SRVS), this new system exploits atmospheric turbulence effects that magnify pieces of images behind heat haze. The formal name for this phenomenon is atmospheric turbulence-generated micro-lensing and it creates a brief, high resolution image behind the haze. The SRVS takes many such images and collates them to create a cohesive image of the entire larger area under observation using new advances in signal processing made possible by advances in computer processing power and increased storage capabilities.'"

Super Scope!?

Didn't Nintendo make that years ago?

Re:Super Scope!?

Indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Scope [wikipedia.org]

Re:

Exclusive: First images of the prototype [youtube.com]

Re:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought "Nintendo" after reading "Super Scope".

A real product

... is a long way off.

Re:

Apparently, nobody got the joke.

As seen on slashdot

exactly one month ago [slashdot.org]

not that new

Lucky imaging has been used in astrophotography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging [wikipedia.org]

i believe the main difficulty would be in the automation of the technique.

Re:

Yes, that was my first thought, once I'd worked out whether the article was about a microscope, telescope or oscilloscope.. Trust the military to re-invent something and give it a $100 name.

ISTM the main drawback is the unreliability of the technique. I wonder what acronym they'll assign to adaptive optics when they "discover" that, too?

Re:

I wonder what acronym they'll assign to adaptive optics when they "discover" that, too?

Scopes With Frikkin' Lasers Attached to Their Heads?

Here's an idea

How about they test it by finding one of the Apollo Lunar Modules ?
In fact, I'd very much like to see NASA test upgraded Hubble this way too :)

Re:Here's an idea

Phase 1: Pump atmosphere into space.

Re:

Phase 2: Wait for the sun to heat up the air between us and a distant star.

Re:

Well... I dunno what step three is but I know that step four is profit!!!

Purpose

Overall, it's probably more useful for observation than for actually extending the shooter's range. The limiting factors as they stand now tend to be based around the immutable laws of exterior ballistics. Having an optic capable of resolving a target at 3000 yards is of no use if your platform, on its very best day, is only capable of semi-consistent hits at 1500 yards. The time delay isn't quite as terrible as some might think (unlike Halo, in real life it can take several seconds for your bullet to ma

Re:

I don't know much about the US infantry (and being /. I didn't RTFA), but where I serve only snipers and sharpshooters use scopes. Most friendly fire incidents are not the work of snipers, who take the time to accurately engage and ID their targets. This sounds to me that either the US infantry is reckless (snipers firing without positively IDing their targets), or that the term 'friendly fire' was used to gain support from those unfamiliar with military tactics.

Re:

Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes? Sure it isn't mounted right down the barrel, but they all use some sort of optical/computer enhanced imaging for target acquisition. I don't know the statistics of where friendly fire is coming from, but a better target identifiying ability for fighting vehicles has got to be a good thing in that regard.

Re:

Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?

Yes. Just about every modern attack platform has some form of optics involved in their target acquisition system. There are few areas of the military where a system like this, assuming it is truly capable, would not be leveraged. Possible uses range from snipers to UAV to attack helicopters.

Re:

Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?

Yes. Just about every modern attack platform has some form of optics involved in their target acquisition system. There are few areas of the military where a system like this, assuming it is truly capable, would not be leveraged. Possible uses range from snipers to UAV to attack helicopters.

I think that this technology can be applied only on stationary scopes tough, since you must take an inordinate amount of screenshots of the same target for the technology to work its magic.
So, stationary scope looking at stationary target = good, moving scope looking at a moving target = bad. Not a bad tradeoff since a moving target is usually much simpler to find/id/kill.

Re:

Friendly fire isn't a myth, I suspect it goes somewhat unreported in the US compared to over here as it seems to be other countries' soldiers that are usually on the wrong end of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921807.stm

Here's to 60 years of precision bombing - yeeee haaaaw!

Re:

Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes?

Yes, but they're called "sights". This is the source of the confusion. THe writer is clueless and doesn't know that "scope" generally means a little thing clamped to a rifle. It's the same kind of ignorance found when they call magazines "clips".

Re:

but where I serve only snipers and sharpshooters use scopes.

Same in US.

This sounds to me that either the US infantry is reckless (snipers firing without positively IDing their targets)

Unlikely.

or that the term 'friendly fire' was used to gain support from those unfamiliar with military tactics.

More likely.

Even more likely: the reporter got it wrong.

Or it's to be used in assassination attempts from ultra-long range where the target is in a crowd of non-targets or friendlies. But that's just paranoid ranting

Re:

only snipers and sharpshooters use scopes

This is true. The problem is with the idiot knowlessman writer who chose the word "scope". The more correct term would be "sight", as found on large armored vehicles, ATGM launchers, and aircraft. They're not likely to be able to pack the equipment necessary to use "advances in signal processing made possible by advances in computer processing power and increased storage capabilities" into anything a guy with a bolt action rifle will want clamped to his receiver.

Re:

or that the term 'friendly fire' was used to gain support from those unfamiliar with military tactics.

I heard a reporter tell a story about when he was in Afghanistan and was out getting stories he'd ride around with local guides in their vehicles. They apparently happened upon an active battlefield one day in a large basin when an Apache turned and started to bear down on their position. When it was about 2 miles out the Apache veered off and left his convoy alone. He later found out the gunner had reco

From what I can tell...

The bits of magnified image are the only ones that are collected. Then the zoomed bits are stitched together, so you get a clear picture of what is very far away.