For those of you that have seen and or played with any of the powered rail models t-works,Wilcox or RIPR. Where do you think this type of technology is going? Will the military actually adopt this or is this just a flash in the pan. I have seen all 3 and there may be more out there I have not seen. I’m not sure if they will survive on the modern battlefield and not require battery back up in each unit put on the rail. The concept is great standard batteries to power all your optics lasers and lights just not sure it will ever be ready for prime time. anybody thoughts?
Actually there is a STANAG project that deals with these. If you google Per G Arvidsson (head of the small arms department of FMV and who also chairs a number of other STANAG projects) you can find some presentations he’s made on the subject over the years.
I would say the main problem is that different add-ons require different amps and/or voltage draw whereby standardization would be a PITA; “Oh, you picked the X brand of flash-light over Y brand… You know that your IR marker will cut out 4 hours earlier then, right?”
Yes i have read some of his stuff and been at the small arms show when they discussed this. Everyone likes the concept in principle Im trying to figure out if this will get any traction in the future or will this dog never hunt?
I would say that that neither the delivery system nor the power source is the real problem; it is the add-ons. And because of this we’re at a point where either a large array of manufacturers have to take interest in making rail-fed products with a minimum draw (and I’m not sure the technology is readily available in a format that would fit and/or withstand a combat environment), or a bunch of rail-manufacturers have to start offering powered products at an acceptable price point for it to have a future.
The only way this dog would hunt is if the cost of the rails+add-ons+power source is lower than the cost of just swapping batteries in existing products. If you have a $1000 rail system with a $1500 rail-powered light and a $200 power source; that would buy a shitload of CR123 to feed an existing light on an existing rail - and in many cases I would guess the light will need to be replaced before you even reach the break-even point.
Of course, if a large enough army put out an RFQ for a powered rail then that might get the attention of the industry, but as it stands it’s a novelty product.
ETA: I see Wilcox charged $2,919.33 for their FUSION Rail System, $1,153.46 for their FUSION vertical grip/battery compartment (for a single CR123), and $554.13 for the “Surefire FUSION FL Module” retail in 2011.
That’s not an insurmountable problem if the guys writing the requirements are thorough and precise in their definitions. If it was me writing the requirements, I would define the properties of the accessories necessary to be considered compatible in a fairly detailed manner.
Particularly, I’d define the physical interface and I would give each category of accessory a set of power specifications it has to meet to be considered “STANAG TBD” compatible. I’d probably define a single operating voltage across the board and then each category of accessory (light, laser, RDS, etc, etc) would get it’s own maximum current draw specification. Any accessory can draw less than the spec, but not more.
With that setup, you could fairly easily give the guys using it a chart of minimum run times based on what accessories they’re carrying or something similar. It might be simple enough you could laser etch it into the rail.
It would probably have to be some sort of very ruggedized, weatherpack quick connector. I think you’re correct in that the biggest issue would be format. Finding something small enough that it could say be incorporated into a quick disconnect mount for an accessory would be a challenge.
It all depends on what the overarching system requirements are. Cost is always a factor, but depending on the capability desired, it can be a secondary or tertiary consideration. Maybe you can have a system where the overall weight is less, which the guys carrying the rifle tend to like, or maybe it’s a matter of reducing the logistical tail making resupply easier.
The question you’ve really got to ask is what added capability or advantage does a system with that general description provide. Only when you answer that question can you determine if the cost is worth it.
I know of at least 2 more companies who have been working on them for years, as well as others who have at least some interest but lack the ability to do it all in house. There are a few ideas running around right now about standardization of devices.
Eventually, I think we will see it come to fruition, but I’m not sure it will be in this decade. One issue I’ve seen is questioning which device has absolute power? Is it the optic which needs to be most important, or is it something else? Should the user have input and ability to make changes?
With all due respect, since I work in LE/gubment sales, I have seen a number of technical specs issued for various large scale procurements, and I have never seen a government technical procurement spec of this kind be realistic. Either they ask for Perpetuum Mobile or they’ve locked onto a single COTS product and they end up writing a spec that is too precise and does not allow for any deviation from that product, even if there are better options/solutions available.
Maybe you can have a system where the overall weight is less,
That would probably be awesome, but then again you could achieve the same thing specifying a lighter battery (see below).
The question you’ve really got to ask is what added capability or advantage does a system with that general description provide. Only when you answer that question can you determine if the cost is worth it.
True, and the one benefit I can see would be to have one standardized power source for all accessories. But then you don’t need to mess around with powered rails to get that; all you have to do is have the big green machine specify that from this date forward (until someone comes up with a better power source) all firearms accessories shall run off of a XYZ model battery. Problem solved.
Indeed; and how do you solve it if you have a torch of brand A, a laser from brand B, a sight from brand C etc? Do you make it location-specific? If so you’ve limited the modularity of the system. If you don’t make it location-specific you’ll need to have some sort of control unit (probably tied to the power source) that has to be programmed for each operator’s individual setup. Just imagine IraqGunz sitting with his laptop, programming all the guys firearms before they head out. :blink:
With all due respect, since I’m one of the guys writing said requirements albeit not from a functional or performance perspective, you’re not wrong in the least. I’ve see that myself a time or two lol. 
I’m assuming the people developing the spec will be intelligent and sensible, which can be a bad assumption to make. Hell, I’ve had to straighten out enough poor requirements documents since I’ve been working to fill a small file cabinet.
People in my line do have a tendency to have a sort of tunnel vision when it comes to these things, which can easily result in going over the line into a too restrictive specification. In a perfect world you have to be loose enough to allow multiple implementations while still maintaining compatibility and performance. Not necessarily an easy line to walk.
You can, but from my perspective as ye olde systems engineer, there are a whole host of concerns with that as well. Do you go for less capacity and thus less run time? You can spec a lighter and/or more energy dense battery chemistry, but there are durability and stability issues with those. If you’ve never seen a lithium-sulfur battery go runaway, it’s quite impressive.
True, that could totally be an easier way to do business as long as there are no non-obvious reasons why each bit of gear utilizes a different battery type. I’ve run across some non-obvious issues that have prevented me from making changes to things I thought were horrendously stupid. In any event dictating a high level requirement for battery commonality could be done since IIRC all that gear is managed through PEO Soldier…
I’d actually expect them to dictate that the priority will be set up one way and yes you Mr. Infantryman will deal with it being that way whether you like it or not. Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen such a thing. Lotta PMs abhor any sore of user ability to customize to taste…
The concept is pretty neat, I read a little bit about these systems. Seems like there are some tough angles to look at, though, to put such a thing in the hands of ‘the average soldier.’ It looks like it would have to either be more simplistic with weather-resistant/ruggedized connections, or ‘smart’ enough, a.k.a complex, to not supply power to points that are not in use. (From what I have read, some of them use or plan to use these routes, but I have only read a little.)
I’m not a soldier, but I do know how innovations like this get treated ‘in the field’ in the civilian world. Ruggedized/weather-resistant stuff gets damaged and/or left open and ignored, leading to problems later with shorting/grounding the battery pack and/or other electronics, damaging them or simply draining it prematurely. Make it ‘smart,’ and it better be twice as tough as it is (fuzzy) intelligent, because those semiconductor brains are going to take a thorough beating.
As has already been said, it probably can be done, but can it be done affordably and efficiently enough to reliably stop using standard batteries? The concept definitely could become a benefit.
What if any year do you guys think his would be addoped by a major military US or other Im guessing 2016
Find a defined operational requirement and a pot of money to develop it with and you’ll go a long way towards answering that question. As it stands, I’m not aware of either of those even existing…
I think it may be too soon to call. This is gonna take some more R&D, which will take more funding. As stated if a large pot of money is found it could be pretty soon.