“Smart rifle” technology seems to have finally arrived in the form of an “AI” enhanced scope that still requires you to pull the trigger, but picks the optimal time to actually fire to take out drones.
“High-tech, often AI powered scopes are something every major military has been working on for the past few years with more failures than successes. The [Smash] 2000L is arguably the most developed such system in existence. However, given the laughably poor records high-tech scopes have, it’s valid to ask if this new system currently in the process of testing and adoption with the US Marine Corps, the UK, Australia, and other countries, is actually worth the hype.”
It only works against small drones because, you know, rifle. “The drones of the Smash 2000L system are designed to take out a roughly the size of a DJI Mavic drone, a system used by both Ukraine and Russia before DJI blocked all exports to both countries, after which both sides continue to produce very similar drones domestically. This drone and other comparable designs are actually among the most used drones in the war, with either side launching around 10,000 of them every single month. That makes them the exact type of threat the Smash 2000L was designed to counter.”
“The Mavic E3 drone measures [roughly] 14 by 11 inches with a height of barely [4] inches. This makes it roughly the size of a large Domino’s pizza.”
“They’re capable of reaching and exceeding speeds of roughly 50 [miles] an hour. Some of them are even capable of doubling that.”
“Drones rarely operate individually. Swarm attacks are most effective as they guarantee results.”
“From February 2022 to today, Ukraine went from domestically producing a total of about 3,000 drones per year to being capable of producing 5 million of them. Russian figures are similar at around 3 and a half million drones a year.” I would like to know where these figures are coming from.
“The obvious solution is just jamming the living shit out of everything. Although autonomous drones are gaining ground in warfare nowadays, most drones are still operated in real time by an operator. That operator communicates with the drone via a radio link and by jamming that link, essentially flooding it with radio frequency, the drone is cut off from its operator. The jammers themselves exist in the form of rifles. One of which famously made an appearance at the funeral of Pope Francis in 2025, the
very first time such a weapon was fielded at a papal funeral.”
Skipping over the jamming/fiber optic drone arms race we’ve covered before.
“Large and small surface-to-air missiles were launched, depending on the size of the approaching drone, and even other drones were used to take down drones.”
“However, the last ditch option for a soldier to use is their own primary firearm. And this is exceptionally difficult for a number of reasons. To take down a drone with their own assault rifle, a soldier who is high on adrenaline and reasonably afraid for their safety, has to hit a target roughly the size of a volleyball at a distance of between 50 and 200 meters as it buzzes around erratically at highway speeds. And they have to do that with a projectile that’s 5.56 or 7.62 mm in diameter.
“Because of this, both Russian and Ukrainian infantry squads have adopted shotguns as their go-to last ditch anti-drone firearm.”
“Shotguns have proven to be much more effective against drones as a last resort, which is why some manufacturers like Benelli have developed anti-drone shotguns with special ammunition.”
“Ukraine has also developed a special 5.56 anti-drone rounds that fires several sub projectiles instead of a solid bullet. The soldier still needs to fire five or six rounds while tracking the target, but the round is far more effective than standard ammunition because of its shotgun principle.”
The main problem is that shooting at drones that are trying to kill you is highly stressful, and accuracy suffers. “Aiming perfectly in such a stressful scenario is just borderline impossible, no matter how accurate you are. And this, of course, is where the Smash 2000L comes in.”
“The idea behind Smash is very simple. Turn every soldier into a sharpshooter. Smash is essentially a very advanced scope that can be installed on most firearms, and it’s allegedly capable of hitting targets, even very small moving targets like drones, with a 95% hit probability. For comparison, experienced shooters using red dot sites at a distance of about 100 m average a 20% hit rate.”
“With a Smash 2000L, even trainees average an 80% hit rate, with experienced shooters reaching the aforementioned 95%. Which is really pretty impressive.”
“Smash consists of a digital camera with an attached display that’s seen by the shooter, a trigger guard, and most importantly, a computer. That computer does all the work. It locks onto a target, analyzes its speed, heading, distance, and environmental conditions such as wind and humidity to estimate the best time for a soldier to take a shot. When it locks onto a target, Smash tracks it until it calculates the best time to shoot.”
“As long as the computer estimates that the hit probability is low, it will block the trigger using the trigger guard. The shooter presses their finger against the trigger, even though it’s blocked. And when the shooter takes aim at the very specific spot on the target, which the computer deems the highest hit probability spot, the computer unlocks the trigger guard, the trigger is pulled and a drone is shot out of the sky.”
“The shooter can also wait for the computer to unblock the trigger before pulling it. But the high hit probability time window is of course very short when it comes to fast flying drones. That’s why it’s easier for the shooter to keep pressing the trigger the whole time and simply wait for the computer to unblock it at the appropriate moment.”
“When testing in the United States, Smash took down loitering drones surprisingly casually. Fast moving drones are likely going to be more difficult, but certainly not impossible and certainly much easier to hit with Smash than without it.”
“The system can also be used to eliminate ground targets such as other infantry troops, and even more easily at that. In that mode, it’s accurate up to 300 m or close to 1,000 ft during the day, while the small drone elimination mode is accurate up to 100 m or around 300 ft in both day and night.”
“Aside from just destroying small drones, Smash is also marketed as being capable of destroying micro drones. These drones are usually used for reconnaissance, not direct attacks, and they’re sometimes so small that they can fit in the palm of your hand.” Like the super-tiny, super-expensive Black Hornet drone.
“The Smash system itself can also fit in the palm of your hand. It weighs 740 g or 26 oz and is smaller than most magnification scopes, with a battery capable of running for 72 hours before needing recharging.”
“Smash is a line of sight system, which means that you have to be able to see the enemy for it to track the enemy. That means a couple of things. For one, you need to expose yourself at least a little bit for Smash to do its job. And secondly, Smash can’t track an enemy behind cover. It can’t see through walls. This also means it’s impossible for the shooter to aim from thick brush, for example, as there’s no way for Smash to get around that.”
“With this in mind, Smart Shooter came up with an addition to the Smash 2000L in the shape of the Smash Hopper 5000, a remote control weapon station, and another thing with a fantastic, very 1990scoded name. A soldier who prefers not to expose themselves to the enemy can mount their rifle with its 2000L system attached on the Hopper 5000 and control it from the safety of cover.”
“The system weighs a substantial 25 kilos or 55 lbs. It’s clunky, takes a while to set up, and it can never have the maneuverability of a soldier.”
“Does the Smash 2000L completely solve the drone problem? No, absolutely not. But it is a step in the right direction, isn’t it? Accuracy and speed of aiming are the biggest hurdles an infantryman has to tackle when shooting down a drone with their firearm. And Smash is essentially just a
system that does that job much more accurately and almost instantly.”
The IDF tried it with only one rifleman per squad. First problem? “Blue-on-blue incidents.”
“At the time of its introduction, the system could not tell the difference between friendly and enemy combatants.”
“Aside from the IDF, the Smash 2000L was purchased by the US primarily to be used by the Marine Corps, as well as the Netherlands, India, Germany, and the United Kingdom.”
“The Israeli manufacturer has since secured a $10.7 million contract with the US Army, making it the second service branch to join the program.
All well and good, but there were many previous “smart” scopes that didn’t work out.”
“Another one of those optic systems that came out of Israel is Arcus, an acronym for Assault Rifle Combat Application, developed by Elbert Systems. The system consists of an eyepiece that the operator attaches to their helmet and wears at all times. The second part is installed on the rifle, essentially acting as an extension of the operator’s eye, providing a live feed from the gun’s point of view.”
“Arcus is capable of recognizing the human body shape and marking the target on the operator’s eyepiece. It can easily detect motion. It provides the operator with a range estimation, and the feed is transmitted to command headquarters at the same time, allowing everyone to see what the operator sees.” Shades of “network-centric warfare.”
“The system also controls fire in a similar way to the Smash 2000L and improves accuracy in the field. It even provides the operator with a built-in compass that essentially allows them to navigate without having to constantly check a map or GPS. The two modes of operation, thermal or electrooptic, allow the operator to use the system in both daytime and nighttime. I mean, it even has a shot counter to let the operator know when they’re low on ammo, which is very video game-esque. It is an absolutely perfect solution for a lot of real problems that infantrymen truly do face, and it could change the way the wars are fought.”
“And yet, nobody’s using it. Not even Israel is using it, let alone any other military. Five years after presenting Arcus and no one has even tried adopting it, with its biggest accomplishment so far being just reminding everyone of the target tracking system from Aliens.”
“The story is not much more positive with the United States’s next generation squad weapon program, which includes the XM157 fire control system.”
“When it comes to the XM157, the test results are disappointing. During testing in 2024, the fire control system received negative reviews from soldiers who used it. To be more specific, the 2024 report says that quote, “The XM7 with mounted XM157 demonstrated a low probability of completing one 72-hour wartime mission without incurring a critical failure.” Is it Windows based?
“It seems like after years of hyping up the next fire control system, the scope has simply gone missing and we’re not going to see it fielded anytime soon because it’s simply not reliable.”
Skipping over the Russian example, since they can’t even get their SAM systems to work right.
“So when we draw the line under AI assisted high-tech scopes,the result is not proportional to the hype surrounding them. Russia’s not using them. The US Army’s not using them, in spite of really really wanting to spend a ton of money promoting them in the news. And even Israel, which has been developing several types of these scopes, is only kind of using them, nowhere close to issuing them across the board to the entirety of the IDF. And this brings us the most obvious question that we’ve been building to this entire video. Are these devices, which are hailed in the media as the next big thing that’s going to revolutionize the way wars are fought, just an endless money pit?”
“Even if scopes such as the XM157 on the Smash 2000L were perfected tomorrow and all their software glitches and battery issues were ironed out, there are still three main issues regarding high-tech optics that are keeping them from becoming the norm.”
“The first two problems relate to doctrine. Over-reliance on technology can only take a soldier or a unit a certain distance before achieving the adverse effect and nullifying their fighting capabilities with old school equipment. At the same time, decision-making tools cannot be blindly trusted. Taking the Smash 2000 as a direct example, what happens if infantrymen start relying on AI to do the aiming and trigger pulling jobs for them too much? Well, the result is that a soldier is demoted from a shooting combatant to somebody who just broadly handles a weapon and points it in roughly the right direction, with the most important part of the job being carried out by the fire control system.” Given current U.S./NATO/Israeli doctrine, I don’t see this as a problem anytime soon.
I’m cutting out a lot of Whistler’s “whatbouts,” as I assume a competent system will allow switchback to manual targeting. Indeed, he reaches much the same conclusion. “Using traditional scopes or iron sights will remain the norm in doctrine, and AI powered scopes will be used sparingly, mostly for specialized tasks such as taking down drones or targets that are particularly difficult for a traditional optic to get an angle on.”
His next point is that sea-based automatic systems still make mistakes as well, and still produce friendly fire incidents.
His conclusion: “It is easy to see why high-tech optics will never fully replace the Mark1 eyeball. They will, mind you, be introduced in huge numbers, and military forces will most definitely find use for them, such as taking down anti-infantry drones, for example, but it’s extremely unlikely that they will become the standard infantry fire control system anytime soon.”
He may be right, but possibly not for the reasons he thinks, namely that ground-based drones will probably take over more and more (but not all) infantry-based functions as those are further developed, though I doubt they will entirely replace infantry (AKA, the Queen of Battle) any time soon.
I just want to note that these wonderscopes are not really AI as we’ve come to understand it, they are merely souped-up, shrunk-down targeting computers that we’ve had for a while. There’s no theoretical reason they can’t, it’s a question of when the system crosses the threshold of cost-effectiveness.