EXACTO demonstrates first-ever guided .50-caliber bullets

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/07/10a.aspx

by yurisagalov • 12 years ago

201 150 12 years ago

darpa.mil

pyrocat2• 12 years ago

Countdown to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag

haptiK• 12 years ago

ROFL

/thread

Seriously though. How do they plan to designate the target for this round?

ArikBe3• 12 years ago

I believe that targets are marked using a laser.

sschalk• 12 years ago

Anyone seen Aliens? Anyone say M56 Smart Gun?

http://alienanthology.wikia.com/wiki/M56_Smart_Gun#Target_Tr...

"When powered up, the gun begins tracking targets via its infrared tracker mounted above the barrel. The tracker consists of a 256 x 256 element platinum-silicide focal plane array cooled to 770 degrees K by a tiny cryogenic gas cooler working on the Stirling principle. This system monitors a 30 degree cone in front of the gun and transmits high-resolution thermal images in the 8-10 um range to a miniature video display in the operator's eyepiece."

Thats all available technology - right now.

cromwellian2• 12 years ago

Bah, 1984 called and Tom Selleck and Gene Simmons want their self-guided bullets back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA6ybohAVq8

cromwellian2• 12 years ago

This is being voted down, why? The entire subject of _Runaway_ is self guiding bullets and killer drones, and it came out in 1984.

buckbova• 12 years ago

This is exactly what popped in my head when I read this headline. The camera angle from the bullet is pretty hilarious, with people diving out of the way and what not.

joshvm2• 12 years ago

I imagined the final scene from Wanted (2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QADr4hVKs3Y

callmeed• 12 years ago

Can't decide if this will be mounted on the robots that take over ... or we will need them to fight the robots

Zelphyr• 12 years ago

Initially you'll only be able to use them with a Zorg ZF-1 pod weapons system.

hawkharris• 12 years ago

Realizing that the United States' military capabilities are good enough, DARPA employees have turned their attention to replicating scenes from video game boss battles.

ENGNR• 12 years ago

Considering the robots can use radar to see the bullet, calculate the reverse trajectory and have their own laser guided bullets heading towards you before it even hits... I imagine humans will only be fighting robots in person for a brief slice of history.

ArikBe3• 12 years ago

The video and program page[1] don't reveal anything about how this works. I remember watching a documentary a few years ago on Discovery channel where this project was discussed. The bullet was essentially divided into a front and back portion, which could twist independently. The twisting then allows for corrections in the air. There's another design by Sandia labs where the bullets has little "fins" (like a missile)[2], however judging by the render provided on the DARPA page[3] it's not the bullet by Sandia.

Either way we now have IRL aimbot.

[1] http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Extreme_Accuracy_... [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmAzAmYv364 [3] http://www.darpa.mil/uploadedImages/Content/Our_Work/TTO/Pro...

fractalsea• 12 years ago

That may explain how the target corrects its trajectory towards the actual target, but how does the bullet determine what the "actual target" is in the first place?

I would imagine this would be simple in test cases, but in the real world, what about a hostile target may differentiate it from a friendly ally that is nearby?

trevyn• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guidance

wiml• 12 years ago

Laser designator, I think.

ArikBe3• 12 years ago

I commented below that it's marked by laser, but the counterargument was that if you can aim a laser you can aim a rifle. Let me rephrase: the goal of this system is to correct for deviations from the actual target which occur in the air. Because of wind, temperature, rotation of the earth (when taking really long shots) and other factors a marksman might have to adjust his or her aim and actually aim off-target to get the bullet on target. However, using this system you would just keep the crosshairs on target and the bullet will correct itself in the air to hit that target. I think that aiming the rifle in a different spot is only done for test purposes. I can't imagine why you would want to create a system that automatically determines the target instead of letting a trained marksman determine the target and help that marksman.

wmeredith3• 12 years ago

If it's like other smart ordinance that is self guided, it requires a designation of some sort. This is often done with a laser. Snipers work in tandem with a spotter already. Their job could go from spotter to laser operator. Or it could just be a function of the actual shooter. Keep your scope (and laser) on the target until impact. Actual the recoil would probably screw that up. I think you would have to have the spotter manning the target designator.

ahoodlum2• 12 years ago

There is some sort of active guidance. Either it is doing the seeking itself (according to a laser designator of some kind) or something tells it where to go in real time, based on that "something" else's targeting capability.

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 12 years ago

Just guessing, but the guidance is almost certainly handled remotely.

Which opens it up to being hacked... a smart enemy might cause bullets to veer away from him.

dm22• 12 years ago

Some new rifles allow you to "tag" targets and with sufficiently advanced software it should be able to tell the difference, unless the two targets overlap, then it's a maybe.

Sniper rifles already exist that can tag and track moving targets.

ultimoo• 12 years ago

I wonder what is the technology behind this? Does the bullet have a small GPS module along with small motors that change the form of the bullet so that it can be guided by the rifle over radio frequency? What about the radio waves being interrupted or jammed etc.

Or is it something more ground-breakingly advanced?

thefreeman• 12 years ago

I have absolutely no idea. But it seems like these would be moving far too fast, and the maneuvering far too precise, for GPS tracking to be used.

seany2• 12 years ago

Between 880-930meters/sec. I would think that a gps would have a hard time fitting inside a typical 50bmg bullet anyway. They only weigh about 45grams.

nostrademons2• 12 years ago

It says "optical guidance system" in the article. I suspect that the sniper needs to light up the target with a laser sight, and there's a small computer and microchip that adjusts the form of the bullet (per other commenter's description here) so that the laser dot is always directly ahead.

The article also says it's designed to compensate for "weather, wind, or target movement", so my assumption is that the sniper has to keep the target in their sight at all times, but it can compensate for the bullet ending up off-course after it has left the barrel.

larrys2• 12 years ago

"It says "optical guidance system" in the article."

It doesn't make much sense that if you were developing an advanced weapons system that, other than to get out disinformation, it would be a good thing to tell exactly what you are doing in any detail at all.

What is the advantage of releasing any information at all other than:

1) To insure support and funding for projects

2) To scare the enemy.

3) To get the enemy to spend resources on the wrong thing

..etc.

ErikRogneby2• 12 years ago

I wonder what each bullet will cost once production starts?

I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it has failed. US military technology might as well be black magic. What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc?

Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.

jMyles• 12 years ago

fourth?

lifeisstillgood• 12 years ago

I always assumed that was an argument for havin militias that have Apache helicopters and high explosives.

thecoffman• 12 years ago

I believe you mean "second."

Additionally, vastly superior technology doesn't necessarily outweigh other factors. It certainly makes a huge difference but history is littered with counterexamples.

ErikRogneby2• 12 years ago

Yes I did, thank you. The second amendment is the fourth article of the Bill of Rights.

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 12 years ago

This is why well into the 20th century we didn't have standing armies.

We should do away with the one we have now.

bicx• 12 years ago

And draft a lucky few hundred thousand when the "need" arises. :)

wwwwwwwwww• 12 years ago

Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.

This concept is actually called "bread and circus", and was originally applied by mid-roman emperors to better control the populace and keep political satisfaction up. I'm kinda disappointed that the wikipedia article doesn't go into detail about this because it played a huge part in maintaining control of the empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

rational-future• 12 years ago

Junk food and reality shows/professional sports nowadays.

pessimizer• 12 years ago

Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.

If by "we" you mean you and me, and people like us. Plenty of people are skipping meals to save money.

wyager• 12 years ago

Militias don't have to fight directly against tanks and fighter jets. That's why they're effective.

You can't maintain a police state by blowing up houses. If you do that, you end up cutting off your only revenue source (taxing employed people), because your tax base either can't or won't work (because they're dead, the roads are impassable, etc.). In fact, this situation would actually be quite beneficial to an insurgency, because if an attacker can't pay or feed their foot soldiers, they will lose their army.

In the end, you need foot soldiers to maintain a police state. It's not economically feasible to give everyone state of the art sniper rifles like this, and spending 10x more money on soldiers doesn't make them 10x more effective.

It is exponentially harder to maintain a police state than to destroy one, which is why even poorly trained, poorly equipped insurgencies can effectively fight against well trained, well equipped governments. If the US government has problems with this in Vietnam and Iraq, imagine how much worse it would be if they tried the same thing on their own well-armed revenue source.

mikeyouse2• 12 years ago

It's not economically feasible to give everyone state of the art sniper rifles like this.

The US has ~2M active duty / reserve military members.[1] The SR25 is a common choice for 'sniper' rifles in the military and costs about $5K new and kitted out. If this state of the art rifle costs 5x the typical rifle, it would cost $25B to outfit half of our current military with these weapons.

The US spends over $650B per year on our military[2], so that $25B would only represent 4% of our annual budget.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...

dobbsbob• 12 years ago

To maintain a police state you need mass surveillance and informants. Secret police make you disappear long before your armed rebellion starts and your neighbors will be too scared to get involved or are the informants who turned you in. Flooding the streets with police isn't needed, along with informants they can always work with gangs like Assad does to act as street enforcement. The state's only cost is looking the other way while trafficking goes on and paying a network of snitches in every community.

yongjik• 12 years ago

The flip side is that you can't fight a police state by blowing up houses, because you cut off the support of your people. (That is, unless the government is already busy blowing up houses and people decide there's no other way out.)

I always feel that "well-regulated militias" acting as a counterweight to the US government is a silly idea, because by the time a militia is called into action, (1) the government can also mobilize all its shiny toys and crush whoever's in the way, and (2) WTF were you doing while your country slid slowly and painfully into the level of present-day Iraq?

walterbell• 12 years ago

The greater the asymmetry of technology, the greater the PR problem. PR problems are infectious, but they require a sympathetic protagonist. A pre-emptive solution is to fake unsympathetic protagonists that can be crushed ruthlessly to dissuade contagion. Parse wisely.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/antz/

noblethrasher• 12 years ago

We should probably be more worried about the non-lethal weapons that can be used to effect control and compliance — like the mobility denial and active denial systems.

At least firehoses, dogs, and guns have a chance of illiciting sympathy from onlookers (e.g. the international community). Protesters on a big slip-n-slide will probably just end up on /r/funny.

oftenwrong• 12 years ago

Especially because "non-lethal" is a misnomer. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Victoria_Snelgrove and all of the people killed by tasers.

rayiner4• 12 years ago

The basis of American freedom isn't some libertarians with rifles. Its the fact that the U.S. military consists of poorly-paid kids who care more about family and community than they do about abstract ideas. That and the fact that the military and its arsenal is physicislly distributed over numerous states. More powerful military technology makes us more free, not less. It just means it takes fewer people to break ranks from an oppressive government and effectively oppose it.

The biggest threat is well paid mercenaries. It always has been.

josephjrobison• 12 years ago

Interesting thought pattern which I agree with to some extent. Have you come across any articles related to this? Would love to read.

zobzu• 12 years ago

That also relates to the why the police is generally enforcing whatever a government wants, while the military always sides with the people when things go really wrong.

EGreg2• 12 years ago

How about when we replace the kids with war drones and robots?

fragsworth• 12 years ago

Look at what the U.S. military has been doing - they're effectively well paid mercenaries. For the last 60 years, hardly anyone in the military has had a vested interest in any of the conflicts, and does it just for the money.

throwaway7548• 12 years ago

Well, pretty soon the U.S. military will consist of even more poorly-paid drones who care less about family and community than they do about abstract bits of information coming from the command center.

fit2rule• 12 years ago

More powerful military technology makes us more free, not less.

Hogwash. Military technology is by definition the usurping of freedom. Always has, and always will be. You are born free - the machines are made to take it away from you.

walshemj3• 12 years ago

Not for several hundred years it hasn't other wise the Swiss would still be in business as condottiere.

noonespecial• 12 years ago

The 2nd isn't really to protect you from the combined might of an oppressive nation-state. If it gets that far, its really already too late. The 2nd is to protect you from Bob down at the police station in Podunksville deciding that he might like to have a go at running the town his way and helping himself to your stuff. Its the safety valve on the local-est kind of corruption.

dragonwriter• 12 years ago

The 2nd was initially more to assure the states the means to protect themselves against encroachment by the central government (and thereby dissuade such encroachment), a concern that was within vivid living memory for the framers, and was of particular concern to skeptics of the centralization that the Constitution represented compared to the Articles of Confederation.

Like all of the Bill of Rights, it was about constraining the Federal government, not the Podunksville Police.

ranran8762• 12 years ago

While I'm not for or against the second amendment, do you honestly think it's a realistic scenario that the government gets oppressive to the point where people will pick up arms? Do you really honestly believe that? Do you think other developed nations like the UK, France, or Japan are at a higher risk of turning to tyranny b.c they do not have guns widely available?

droopyEyelids• 12 years ago

Every nation you listed including our own has at some point fought against it's own government.

The assumption isn't whether a government can get oppressive to the point where people fight. It's "Is our government so good that citizens will never have cause to oppose it, for the rest of human history?"

jeffdavis• 12 years ago

"I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it has failed."

The government doesn't actively need to attack people with their own agents. They just need to make it known that someone won't be protected, and let the criminal element do the rest. In some places, weapons for self-defense can be a defense against that kind of government.

geon• 12 years ago

It is not so much about the weapons, but that you won't even have the chance to use them.

How would you organize your coup? The government listens to all your calls, reads your email/im, knows where you travel and what you buy.

You would be branded a terrorist and detained before you could say "unconstitutional".

Like guns would even make a difference...

FroshKiller• 12 years ago

Fire is a cheap and freely available force multiplier.

sosborn• 12 years ago

What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc?

First of all, have you seen how much of a fight low tech militias have put up against the U.S. lately?

Secondly, don't forget that the people trained to use that technology are U.S. citizens too and will fight for their family before they fight for their county (most of them anyway).

Shivetya• 12 years ago

There is one thing to note about the "difficulty" the modern US military has faced versus low tech militias. The US military has been required to exercise due caution so as not to cause significant collateral damage.

The trade off is lives saved today versus those lost tomorrow. If WW2 had been fought the same way it may have taken years longer. You do not end support for an enemy until you beat the population that supports them. There is no infinite number in resistance, ww2 proved that.

vacri4• 12 years ago

There's no government that would turn the US military against the US population. It just wouldn't happen. What is happening though is the militarisation of the police, and making it more and more 'normal' for the population to accept it. The idea of a national army being turned against it's own people is hopelessly outdated in the modern, western world. There are more efficient and more subtle ways to control the population.

walshemj3• 12 years ago

They don't in most cases come out and fight - they use the most effective tactics for their lower quality troops and poorer equipment.

tsotha• 12 years ago

No revolution succeeds when the military is united against the rebels. Any scenario which has the US government successfully overthrown includes some significant part of the military either deserting or switching sides.

ctdonath• 12 years ago

Every year in the USA, some 18,000,000 (yes, eighteen million) snipers engage in live fire live target training. They operate independently with their own weapons, camo, comms, transport, and other gear (much if it high quality) - and do so as lone operators with minimal government involvement. "Operation Deer Season" is a resounding success.

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 12 years ago

How did Tom Selleck defeat these things?

tomcam• 12 years ago

By being barely smarter than Gene Simmons. Michael Crichton directed IIRC.

bane2• 12 years ago

Now get your targets and guidance from an overhead drone and shoot at people you can't even see!

RyJones3• 12 years ago

or arm the drone.

anemitz• 12 years ago

Here is a decent overview of the different approaches to the problem ranging from consumer (TrackingPoint) to military (DARPA/Sandia): http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurelock-and-laun...

The TrackingPoint system is pretty awesome especially since it's tech which is available today and has some pretty neat applications such aiming through another device: http://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/trackingpoint-shot...

joshvm2• 12 years ago

That system is impressive. The website has a slightly more explanatory video - I wasn't quite sure what I'd seen from the DARPA link.

So basically the gun has a LIDAR for range, IMU for gun attitude and a Linux computer inside. You tag your target and it will use some kind of machine vision algo to track it even if it moves. You hold down the trigger and it will automatically fire when you put the gun in the right place. It's not truly guided like the parent, so if it's a windy day you're still likely to miss, but under calm conditions you can pretty much guarantee a perfect shot.

http://tracking-point.com/

ChuckMcM• 12 years ago

Fascinating, I thought it was the finned bullet but this doesn't seem to be that. There was an interesting, if somewhat forgettable, movie staring Tom Selleck called 'Runaway' which posited "tracker" bullets and use the of quad copters for remote surveillance.

I expect the next step will be fabrics that fluoresce in the visible spectrum when hit by IR or UV laser light to help warn people they are being 'designated.'

finishingmove• 12 years ago

Another thing for killing. Just what the world needed.

keehun• 12 years ago

This is what I initially thought, but there is always a flip-side.

Unless, humans agreed to complete cessation of violence (intentional or not), which to my knowledge has never lasted more than a week in recorded history (of wars), someone will always try to kill someone else.

Although I don't support the Military Industry, I think projects like this have the potential to get less people killed in battle.

iandanforth• 12 years ago

I imagine you pair this with a Tracking Point (http://tracking-point.com/) rifle and you'll get some impressive performance. Thinking through how this would work .. would the sniper's spotter also become the painter? Or would it take a team of three Sniper+Spotter+Painter to combine these two technologies?

edwhitesell3• 12 years ago

You could probably use the Spotter as the Painter in the scenarios where there's s Sniper and a Spotter (e.g. SEALs don't use Spotters, whereas Army SF does).

However, having a Spotter in a different location than the Sniper (or Sniper + Spotter team) leads to other interesting capabilities. Things like, "I have the target marked, based on your current GPS position, just aim to the West."

melvinmt• 12 years ago

I wonder if there are any startups in weapon technology.

gamegoblin• 12 years ago

AFAIK Boston Dynamics was a decently small company that produces cool military tech. (Now bought by Google).

Also, there was a small company that had a show on the Discovery Channel for ~2 seasons called Howe & Howe Tech that produced a cool lightweight continuous track vehicle.

edwhitesell3• 12 years ago

They actually produced a number of tracked vehicles and I see some new information after visiting their site too. Thanks for the reminder!

http://www.howeandhowe.com/

bootload2• 12 years ago

startups in weapon technology

Metal Storm: old but interesting. Mike O'Dwyer conceived of an idea for "a rapid-fire gun prototype ... can fire up to 1,000,000 rounds per minute, or 16,000 rounds per second." [0] to give extra fire-power for Special Forces soldiers. More details can be read here: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s167329.htm

cf: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Mike_O%27Dwyer

prawn• 12 years ago

Were these the guys who adapted their technology to fire fertiliser pellets into the ground from the air, for agricultural purposes?

EGreg2• 12 years ago

"by compensating for weather, wind, target movement and other factors that could impede successful hits."

Translation: those poor suckers who try running sideways will still get hit with these new bullets.

elinchrome• 12 years ago

It's sad how much effort and talent is directed toward killing.

dm22• 12 years ago

This rifle by TrackingPoint takes another approach but seems similarly effective, the main thing that it doesn't account for is wind changes. I think you basically hold down the trigger and it fires when it thinks it'll hit the target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVLmf_CBHKM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBC8IFWC1P0 "Vice - The Rifle That Aims Itself"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mZB6NtCx38 Moving targets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA_ndsi5wnA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xleHVuj2uGQ

EXACTO demonstrates first-ever guided .50-caliber bullets

Related Stories