DOD Wants Bullet That Can Change Direction After Being Fired -- Stars and Stripes
New .50-caliber bullets that can change direction after they have been fired could make soon make U.S. military snipers more deadly.
The EXACTO program — or Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance — is being developed by California’s Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC at the behest of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, according to a DARPA video posted on Youtube.
“The objective of the EXACTO program is to revolutionize rifle accuracy and range by developing the first ever guided small-caliber bullet,” DARPA officials said in a July statement accompanying the video. “The EXACTO .50-caliber round and optical sighting technology expects to greatly extend the day and nighttime range over current state-of-the-art sniper systems.”
The specially designed ammunition can change direction in midair.
Read more ....
Update: DARPA creates first ever self-guiding bullets -- TechGen
My Comment: To say that this will be a revolutionary change on the battlefield is an understatement.
26 comments:
I must be the only one that doesn't see the practicality of this and I highly doubt any revolutionary change on the battlefield.
However, definitely do see the practicality for high profile targets that are often well protected and covert assassinations, but battlefield usage?
I'm skeptical.
Yeah mobile lasers to knock out missiles or mortars and railguns would be revolutionary in my book.
The trend is to develop weapon platforms that can identify and lock on enemy combatants quickly and accurately. Developing a self-guiding bullet will be essential for such a platform to succeed.
But would it be cost effective....ammunition and digital scopes with all the bells and whistles. I think it make a good marksman/sniper platform. But arming infantryman and replacing there m4s is a long shot.
Good point phil. I forgot about the cost factor .... and yup .... that could be a problem.
Take a guided bullet, add in a Tracking Points system, stick it on a drone or a tracked bot and voila, Gen 1 Terminator with a 1 shot one kill rate, even on moving targets, out to 500 meters.
No need for terminators with chain guns or all that ammo.
Phill, the change from 7.62 to 5.56 was so that a soldier could carry more ammo. Most rounds fired in combat are supressive fire, to make the enemy keep their heads down, stay under cover, reduce to stop their attempts to maneuver. So, most shots fired, hit buildings, trees, dirt, not enemy soldiers.
If you can arc a bullet to hit the guy behind the sandbags, rather than put a constant stream of bullets into the sandbags until the enemy gives up the position, it would be a "game changer". Just a few shots fired at the start of an engagement, would decide the engagement.
I disagree Jay, simply because you simplify the process.
Even the article suggests a rather time consuming method for both spotter and sniper.
I get what your saying and agree that it would indeed be a game changer, if the technology was adapted and used in such a simplified way that it could be utilized on the fly in a battlefield scenario.
But none of that is implied with the article, which seems to suggest a rather costly tech to achieve little results, for the moment.
It indeed may lay the foundation of what may be in the future a more battlefield application of it, but as of now, it will be a few years, a decade or more before the tech truly becomes revolutionary and practical to use.
You are right, in that the tech isn't there, yet.
Two years ago, Darpa started working on a guided 20mm shell, and about 6 months ago, they came up with a working, practical model.
Now they are "downsizing" the project to .50 cal.
BTW, the Tracking Point system uses a computerized scope and sensors package to put the whole Sniper/Spotter system into the scope. Point, hold trigger, wait a second for the system to run the algorithems, adjust aim, pull trigger.
I saw a TED talk a few months ago about "gymnastic" drones. The focus of the talk, was that the average smartphone has all the computing power and sensors, to allow AI autonamous flight and problem solving, what is missing, are the algorithems. So, they "play" gymnastics and "stunt", with complex drone swarms to develop the algorithems.
5 years ago, Darpa came out with their robot mule program. It trialed last summer with a weapons platform at White Sands, and underwent unarmed field evaluations with the Marines in Afghanistan.
Every comment here had good points. I would like to point out that it's of paramount importance that the new weapon fits into a fighting "doctrine" that allows it to be a "game changer" otherwise it could end up being a historical curiosity of war.
For it to be a game changer it have to see threw walls and light cover. Training better marksmen would be more cost effective and practical.
There are IR scopes that can see through walls, Reflex scopes that can penetrate light cover, and networked drones that can see everything.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5032/
http://www.guns.com/2014/04/01/trackingpoint-unveils-new-smart-scope-rifle-can-see-walls/
http://riflescopecenter.net/the-basics-on-infrared-rifle-scopes/
At what cost? How much do nightvision goggles cost? And how much does it cost to outfit a single soldier? Not trying to be rude Jay just trying to make a point.
At the battle of Medak Pocket, back in 1993, Canadian Troops were armed with the "new" at the time, Reflex Sights, which allowed them to see into the shaded tree line, and decimate the much more numerous Croat attackers.
Back then, the scope was $1175, now, you can pick up a gen 3 at a Gun Shop for about $275.
It costs NATO Militaries about $500,000 in training costs, and two years to turn a recruit into a deployable Infantryman, and that doesn't include salary, room, board, equiptment.
It doesn't cost $500,000 to see in a shaded tree line? With a red dot sights really dude. NATO lol...show me the links it you don't mind.
It does cost a lot to train and equip an infantryman .... and $500,000 is probably on the low end. And Jay ... you are right about Tracking Point .... that is some awesome tech (see links below).
As to developing such a bullet .... the trend in the military has always been to develop a one round kill capability. For example ... in the past it would take numerous attacks by bombers to destroy a bridge and/or target .... today it is done by one plane and one or two missiles. Artillery .... same thing. Mortars ... same thing. Why not bullets.
Here are some links that I have posted in the past on how the rifle is being changed to make the average infantryman a far more efficient (and lethal) soldier.
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.ca/2014/07/a-500-yard-no-look-rifle-shot-with.html
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.ca/2014/01/this-new-rifle-will-revolutionize-how.html
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.ca/2014/01/us-army-is-starting-to-test-smart-rifles.html
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.ca/2014/02/how-smart-rifles-could-change-modern.html
You need to retake the Speed Reading and Comprehension study.
Towards the end of the Cold War, (80's on), NATO Wargaming and studies of replentishment cycles, raised the reality, that given modern weapons and attrition rates, (A-10 for example), in the European Theater, would have (if it didn't go nuclear), had the combattants fighting with rocks and sticks.
At the time, it took (ramped) 18 months to make an M1 Abhrams and over 2 years to make an F-15.
It was quickly realized that every tank, airplane, infantryman you didn't lose, was more valuable than a replacement theoretically in the pipeline.
Force Protection became a core principal and spending the money on better gear,( body armour rather than flak vests), even spending big bucks on a marginal advantage, became doctrine.
On a side note Jay .... a few days ago James had asked a good question on Russian military doctrine .... and I have been researching on it ever since. Force Protection is now a big part of their (Russian) doctrine .... and no surprise .... after the Georgian war fiasco they had to throw out the old military doctrines and how to think (and equip oneself) for war.
WNU Editor,
With the replentishment rate, the technologies, the shift to Highly trained Professionals, you can't throw Conscripts in a charge against "the Problem".
When even well armed Amateurs can mess up your nice imposing Armoured Column, with a couple of Koronet's and RPG's,
And you can lose a $36 million dollar SU-34 to a dude with a $80k Iglia and an attitude,
Even the Chinese are onboard.
The future is going to be amazing and affordable. Great point Jay let's not train anybody our or your nation let's give them expensive toys and win a war.
It's actually a vicious cycle phill.
As the Tech improves, the training costs go up, the value of the flesh and blood assets increase. Canada right now, imports Airforce Pilots from other NATO countries, under the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, because the cost and the timeline of training up Canadian Pilots, would leave the Canadian Airforce short of planes for combat missions and patrols.
The "expensive toys", like Hellfires and TOW's allowed the US Infantry to gut the Republican Guard well beyond range of their weapons. Coyote Bisons and Leapard II tanks sensor systems destroyed Taliban night attacks well beyond the perimeter.
As the systems become more complex, ( like the new gen Harpoon) to create a deadlier weapon system (self guided, swarming supersonic stealth AS missiles), the need for better trained technicians grows, and the training curve gets longer.
On the otherhand, having a Frigate that can sink a Cruiser 1,000 miles away with out even being seen, really makes a difference when push comes to shove.
The logical end result will be AI drones and robots, that may or may not have a human in a cubicle operaying them, and commuting home at the end of a shift to the suburbs.
Training basic marksman skills ain't that expensive Jay but I agree tech can and will when war's...going to bed have a good sleep my way up north friend.
It takes about 12 months, to train up a raw Recruit to Squad Marksman, and that's just the shooting part and squad part. It takes another year to integrate them at the Platoon, Company and Battalion level.
If you can shave 6 months off that with a piece of tech, that's 6 months that can be spent cross training on other weapons and positions.
Have a good night.
In Canadian money lol...that's like five bucks. Damn email noise waking my beauty sleep. Just send me a link to the training cost your talking about NATO, Canada, I know sniper training is expensive if that's what your referring to.
1993 Pentagon Study put the cost at $138.8k a year(x2) for one Light Infantryman.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a265173.pdf
The Center for Naval Studies reports that just a basic 1'st year Marine, consumes $27k in Course costs alone.
https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/2790023800.pdf
2013 US Army, Navy, Marine, Airforce cost estimates are here;http://projects.militarytimes.com/pdfs/Military-Times-Reserves-Costing-Report.pdf
Thank you sir
Post a Comment