Never heard of it for snipers. There is a networked land mine system for base defense that has been fielded. Maybe this is what you are thinking of.

Several years back I recall reading of a police/SWAT system that sounds like what you're talking about. I believe it was in one of the volumes of the Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons, but I'd have to raid some boxes upstairs to find it. I'm pretty sure it was from back in the mid 1990s, but certainly the technology would have evolved considerably now, what with the recent development of acoustic sensors with the software that can nearly pinpoint shots being fired, and coupling those to thermal optics (not night vision, but actual heat/IR systems). Then there's also the ability to use robots equipped with weapons in mountings rigid enough not to be affected by one wrong breath during trigger pull, and with micro servos can adjust its aimpoint (using zoom optics by the teleoperator) by centimeters throughout its full effective weapon range. Head shot, chest, abdomen, arm, or leg? Kind of gives us the effect we saw in the beginning of that Universal Soldier movie, where everyone fired at the exact same time so none of the bad guys could sound any alarm. I'm all for it, especially for high-crime areas. Might even deter some culprits if the police/military publicly announces they have the system at their disposal (TV, newspaper) and specifically just how capable it could be. Adding to that those blended metal bullets that can disable a perp's weapon (everyone seen that video a few years ago where they shot the guy's pistol out of his hand?), and anymore you've got to be a damn stupid fool to even commit crimes involving hostage takings and hold-ups, especially knowing that nowadays it's just as easy to take you alive and sentence you to 20+ years of being a prison b*tch as opposed to killing you.

Shek - would those be AT or AP mines?

>>Has anyone heard of this being used by the U.S military?<< Nothing like that is in service to the best of my knowledge.

This type of system would be too dependent on a "group think" mentality. Just because you make it through sniper school doesn't automatically mean that you are now a steely-eyed killer. All you would need would be one "no-shoot" sniper on the mission and he could abort everyone.

>>This type of system would be too dependent on a "group think" mentality. Just because you make it through sniper school doesn't automatically mean that you are now a steely-eyed killer. All you would need would be one "no-shoot" sniper on the mission and he could abort everyone.<< And it would only be useful for that one in a thousand mission profile when you have multiple snipers all working the same engagement area and need to have multiple targets literally hit at exactly the same moment, etc.

>>This type of system would be too dependent on a "group think" mentality. Just because you make it through sniper school doesn't automatically mean that you are now a steely-eyed killer. All you would need would be one "no-shoot" sniper on the mission and he could abort everyone.<< And it would only be useful for that one in a thousand mission profile when you have multiple snipers all working the same engagement area and need to have multiple targets literally hit at exactly the same moment, etc. I could see the utility of a variation on this theme for law enforcement, where you had remote authorization to fire and video feed hard wired into a sniper's weapon so that his or her weapon would not be hot until a kill shot (or whatever else) was approved by some supervisor okaying the shot and the target ID, removing any risk of an accidental discharge, unnecessary discharge, shooting the wrong guy, etc. Any sniper worthy of the name would not have an AD anyway, but police, unlike the military, can be sued, etc., so it might have a certain appeal to the bureaucrats . . . Irrelevant for the military, of course.

-"I could see the utility of a variation on this theme for law enforcement, where you had remote authorization to fire and video feed hard wired into a sniper's weapon so that his or her weapon would not be hot until a kill shot (or whatever else) was approved by some supervisor okaying the shot and the target ID, removing any risk of an accidental discharge, unnecessary discharge, shooting the wrong guy, etc. Any sniper worthy of the name would not have an AD anyway, but police, unlike the military, can be sued, etc., so it might have a certain appeal to the bureaucrats . . . Irrelevant for the military, of course. " Actually, isn't the whole idea of net-centric warfare pushing us in that general direction, where any given systems within an area can simultaneously attack multiple targets or collectively attack identical targets with pinpoint precision? Giving soldiers integrated digital networks linking their optics and communications, there is the possibility then that a squad can dispatch wave after wave of assaults without wasting a single round of ammunition: rapid hand-off of targets allows each person to target separate individuals, without having 3 or 4 people shooting at the same person. Adding the advantage of precision sniping at range (pinpoint cranial/upper chest shots, not center mass), and there is the possibilty that in many instances machine guns would not be necessary. Throw in the capabilities that modern thermal imagers can offer, and you no longer have to worry about bad guys sneaking in from around the corner of a building or other concealment. Despite any general distaste I have for the Stryker platform, I see it as the best current system to incorporate just such a combined targeting system. Each soldier could be wirelessly linked to a central "hub" in the vehicle, sharing field of view information, location, and availability per target. Add to that a vast improvement to the 12.7mm RWS in the form of a gyro-stabilized mounting (giving it the stability similar to those chopper-mounted cameras), and give it single-shot capability (Bushmaster 12.7mm, please), and there it gets the full potential of supporting its infantry, by being able to be cued by the optics of a grunt out in front to offer the squad a long range heavy sniping option if needed.

"..net-centric warfare.." Looks great till your network gets hacked. ; )

-"..net-centric warfare.." Looks great till your network gets hacked. ; ) " Ahh, but see, the thing is, military battlefield communications operate on much more secure frequencies than civilian-grade WiFi crap. Seeing as I haven't read any reports coming out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, or other places of the US military getting its SINCGARS networks hacked or jammed beyond use (or AWACS or JointSTARS aircraft being sensor-blinded), I'm not going to give any adversary's hackers sufficient credit until they manage to completely black out a modern digital battlefield. And even if none of them have recently been deployed into combat theaters, the US Army DOES still have EW systems that can triangulate hostile broadcasts, and certainly that could include unauthorized wireless communication tapping into US milnets. Besides, unless your adversary has a snitch inside your forces, he's not going to know the frequencies, nor have the encryptions and authentification keys, to log into your network and muck it up. And actually broadcasting a wide-spectrum jamming signal is just inviting several offensive systems to come raining down on your transmitter's position.