Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military United States

US Successfully Tests Self-Steering Bullets 216

Posted by Soulskill from the bad-news-for-Neo dept.
mpicpp sends this report from The Independent: The United States Department of Defense has carried out what it says is its most successful test yet of a bullet that can steer itself towards moving targets. Experienced testers have used the technology to hit targets that were actively evading the shot, and even novices that were using the system for the first time were able to hit moving targets. The project, which is known as Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance weapon, or Exacto, is being made for the American government's military research agency, DARPA. It is thought to use small fins that shoot out of the bullet and re-direct its path, but the U.S. has not disclosed how it works. Technology in the bullet allows it to compensate for weather and wind, as well as the movement of people it is being fired at, and curve itself in the air as it heads towards its target.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Successfully Tests Self-Steering Bullets More

US Successfully Tests Self-Steering Bullets

Comments Filter:
  • I can shoot around corners now?! Sweet. Hello Cool World, here I come.

    • Don't bother to duck and cover (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:31PM (#49570741)

      I can shoot around corners now?! Sweet. Hello Cool World, here I come.

      You can also be shot around corners. Welcome to "you don't stand a chance, Bub" world.

      • It is awesome. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Greater accuracy means fewer accidental casualties. It also means faster, more decisive military victories. I am pretty happy we got this technology before any of the real monsters did.

        If this tech frightens you, the best way you can protect yourself from it is to stay politically active, and keep your government accountable. Don't weaken your military forces, keep them under observation and focused on the right targets. You can't stop the march of technology, nor can you legislate threats away. All yo

        • It isn't straight awesome, it's an awesomely expensive techno-toy that'll end up like Excalibur rounds, where you practically need a written order from the president every time you fire one because they're so exotic and expensive. The damn things get delivered in private jets by a butler carrying them on a silk cushion, and there's more brass than gunners standing around when they're used. Given that for the cost of a single $80,000 Excalibur you could get an entire battery to carpet the area with $500 M10

          • The purpose of this is sniping. You don't want to fire half a dozen rounds when sniping as that gives away your position. Also you can make the rounds sub sonic, so they don't make that loud crack sound from the sonic boom without reducing accuracy. Note that this will require the shooter to remain sighted on the target until the round hits, in order to guide the bullet to target, as there is no practical way to put long range sensors in a bullet.
            • Ah, that makes sense. It'll be interesting to see what snipers make of this, whether it's a help or more extra complexity to get in the way.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gl4ss ( 559668 )

          well..

          if the drones are anything to go by, the us will just flip a coin about which side it gives a sat phone to call for hits.

          that is, in the bigger picture this won't matter. and in the smaller picture us snipers are already good enough in setting up killing zones and hitting targets - good enough that what they would need help with would be identifying the targets and not hitting them - and in near future term, it's unlikely these bullets will be distributed like normal daily bullet rations. also from le

    • All this functionality in a itty bitty package. I guess using it will mean never having to say, "I'm sorry" anymore.

    • Re:Cool world (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:37PM (#49570793) Journal

      They can shoot around corners, just like they can have a fully automatic belt feed large caliber gun. Good luck getting one of those for yourself unless its an antique.

      If you think this technology is going to be something you or I get head over to the gun show and buy, you can put down your keys, it'll never happen.

      So we can be shot around corners but we won't be shooting around them now or ever.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )

        "Good luck getting one of those for yourself unless its an antique."

        Not a problem at all In fact they are rather easy to get.

        Step 1 join army.
        Step 2 Pass basic
        Step 3 Get M60 issued to you.
        Step 4 PROFIT!

      • Where did it say anything about shooting around a corner?

        From the video it looks more like the bullet if fired upwards and then redirects itself to target, more like lobbing a bullet.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by schnell ( 163007 )

        They can shoot around corners

        So we can be shot around corners but we won't be shooting around them now or ever.

        Uh, who is the they and the we in your statements? Are you actually planning on having firefights against the US military, and if so, is this the thing that makes you think you might be unfairly outgunned? As in, you thought things were a fair fight when you were just going up against the railguns and the stealth bombers and the carrier battle groups and whatnot, but the fact you can't get a fully automatic belt feed large caliber gun and a guided bullet means the US military has an unfair advantage against

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      I can shoot around corners now?! Sweet. Hello Cool World, here I come.

      No, fins can't do that. You'll need a little fancier tech for that.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )
      You already could. An Israeli defense firm designed a system that could fire Glocks and Uzis around a corner by the use of a folding "stock" and a camera/screen combination. It could also be fired regularly like a rifle.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:55PM (#49570971)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Cool world (Score:5, Informative)

          by dissy ( 172727 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @01:19PM (#49571197)

          This instantly reminded me of an 80's movie called Runaway with Tom Selleck, who is a part of a special task force to hunt down and destroy malfunctioning "runaway" robots.

          Their handguns could lock on a target and program the bullets just before firing to stay on their target, although they looked more like miniature rocket based missiles with their own tiny engines and guidance fins.

          I remember a number of the larger scenes giving a bullet-point-of-view type thing as the target goes running away and try to evade the shots by going around corners and obstacles, even purposely missing other people, before embedding into their target and exploding.

          http://xirdalium.net/2012/02/1... [xirdalium.net]

          The above link has a picture of the bullet from this movie, and even goes on about a real prototype from Sandia National Laboratories back in 2012

          https://share.sandia.gov/news/... [sandia.gov]

          I wonder how much these two groups worked together on these.

          • Yep, Gene Simmons, your bullet is ready.

          • Hah! In the movie they shaped it like a regular cartridge, with a shoulder on the casing and everything... except that the "motor" is on the back of the cartridge, meaning the entire thing is actually a huge bullet.

            I hope this wasn't something that was supposed to be able to be fired from a regular rifle in the movie!

        • I believed it involved surreptitiously painting a bulls-eye on their opponent's rear end. The bullets then became self-aware, and were absolutely determined to hit their target. It was a rather impressive technology. The US military could learn a thing or two from Warner Bros.

        • Re:Cool world (Score:5, Informative)

          by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @03:02PM (#49572043) Homepage
          Mock it as you may. The Germans did actually develop an attachment during WWII [wikipedia.org] that allowed such a thing. It would usually shatter the bullet but for tank crews this didn't matter much as it basically became a shotgun at close range when trying to shoot the guy trying to stick an explosive to your tanks treads.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amiga3D ( 567632 )

          I'm pretty sure that ACME already has a patent for this technology.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        You already could. An Israeli defense firm designed a system that could fire Glocks and Uzis around a corner by the use of a folding "stock" and a camera/screen combination. It could also be fired regularly like a rifle.

        Pfft .. you young people today. The Germans did it in the second world war without any fancy folding stocks Krummlauf /a. [wikipedia.org]

      • Germans did it first, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

    • Only problem is that you need a 'spotter' to do so. The current system uses a 'real-time optical guidance system help track and direct projectiles.' This means that the guidance system has to be able to see the bullet so it can send corrective commands to the bullet. So in order to shoot around corners, you'd need a 'spotter' with the guidance system with a view of what's around the corner.

    • So, will these bullets steer away from the coded in important persons? The more sophisticated the systems the more there are walls to be broken in the case of a criminal government.

    • The Corner Shot gun lets you shoot around corners.
      And you can always just take a standard gun and bend the barrel. Yes, it works.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TheCarp ( 96830 )

        My father had a hunting story about a gun like that, tho it was a single shot....

        "....again I slowly put a round in the chamber and slowly lifted the gun back up, and for the third time raised the barrel even higher, this time I was just about aiming into the sky, I pulled the trigger.....and finally....grazed the deers belly and he ran off....if that was my gun, I would have wrapped it around a tree"

      • And you can always just take a standard gun and bend the barrel. Yes, it works.

        so all that R&D on the corner-shot weapon was for nothing? common sense to the rescue.

  • Thank God (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 )

    Someone might have lived.

  • Not self directed but able to compensate (Score:5, Informative)

    by Meshach ( 578918 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:37PM (#49570797)
    According to the article the bullets are not "self directed" but able to compensate for factors that could change the direction like weather, wind, or movement of the target.

    • Semantics (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @01:10PM (#49571099) Homepage Journal

      How can you not be "self directed" if you are compensating for "movement of the target". It has been given a target and actively modifying its flight profile in flight. There must be some intelligence and/or sensing and/or feedback to do this. Seems like an exercise in semantics to call it not-self-directed (at least in flight).

      Is this a disclaimer to avoid getting these bullets confused with things like autonomous killbots? Though it is pretty easy to assume killbots will overwhelming choose these bullets as ammo :-)

      • The same way laser-guided bombs aren't self-directed. I'm guessing here that the gun puts an IR laser dot on the target and the bullet homes in on that. Keep the dot on target and you should hit.

        • With these the guiding laser could be included in the sniper scope. Just keep the target in your scope until the target is destroyed.
          Lase guided bombs require a plane to drop the bomb. With this the sniper can do everything himself.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by doomicon ( 5310 )

      These are factors that a shooter would compute for long range shots (temp, wind, barom. pressure etc.) . So it's no surprise they're trying to simplify. So couple this with the autoscoping technoglogy, and I wonder what future sniper courses will look like, and will they continue to teach basics. Sorta reminds me when Army initially moved to GPS and started to lower the priority/importance of Map/Compass Land Navigation .

      • Like all things .. if the technology extends how far someone without mad skills can shoot, it means the people with mad skills will be able to shoot even further.

        This may improve overall efficiency, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing which is going to leave actual snipers thinking "damn, if only I had a useful skill".

        I'm also betting in your example of GPS, they subsequently rediscovered that if you don't have the underlying navigation skills you're pretty much screwed when the technology goes oflin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by doomicon ( 5310 )

          >I'm also betting in your example of GPS, they subsequently rediscovered that if you don't have the underlying navigation skills you're pretty much screwed when the technology goes ofline.

          Agreed, but took a bit of time. Military seems to be quick to make decesions, but slow to recognize the shortcomings of those decisions.

          I can remember showing up to the motorpool at my first duty station in 1990, and looking at the HUMVEE I was assigned and saying aloud.. "Where's the armor? These doors are made of pl

        • AFAIK a large part of sniper training is not getting detected before your shot. That skill will not become useless even with perfect aim for an apprentice.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        So couple this with the autoscoping technoglogy, and I wonder what future sniper courses will look like, and will they continue to teach basics.

        Probably not much. It's one reason why they still teach hand-to-hand combat: technology can break. A sniper still would need to learn how to stalk, recon an objective/target, and hit something at a very long range (which includes computing the shot). Anyone in a specialized task such as a military sniper should know the science and technique that goes into applying their craft. Technology can enhance but shouldn't supplant the basics. An analogy would be a mathematician who can use a calculator but doe

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by itzly ( 3699663 )

          An analogy would be a mathematician who can use a calculator but doesn't know how to multiply/divide by hand.

          That only works for the simplest things. To deal with breaking technology, just send in 3 times as many snipers with smart rifles. If the rifle does all the hard work of hitting the target, the operator only needs to point it out, which is a lot easier to train somebody to do.

  • Obligatory clip from Fifth Element (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mof-Tan ( 108800 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:40PM (#49570829)

    Gary Oldman shows how it's done:
    https://youtu.be/1Pb1Voc85ac [youtu.be]

  • Wanted (Score:3, Funny)

    by The Grim Reefer ( 1162755 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:41PM (#49570839)
    Don't you just need to swing a handgun before you fire it? [youtube.com]

    Oh, and get your heart to beat at 500 bpm, or something. ;-)

  • It's the REPLAY BUTTON! (Score:3, Funny)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:53PM (#49570959) Journal

    Sweet! A Zorg invention coming to fruition. I like it!

  • Fins - probably not. (Score:3)

    by willy_me ( 212994 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @01:06PM (#49571065)
    More likely they slightly adjust the centre of gravity while the bullet is rotating. Adjusting the mass internally would be simpler and more reliable then fins.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rwven ( 663186 )

      yeah, pretty much this. Fins wouldn't work well because they'd have to readjust their position constantly as the bullet rotates. Considering the speed at which they rotate, it'd make much more sense to just mess with the internal weight distribution of the bullet.

      • The summary mentioned that these are shot from a "smooth bore" rifle. Meaning no twisted landing to make the bullet spin, like a shotgun. So unknown from the info given if the bullet even does spin. The reason most bullets spin are to keep it stable in flight so it doesn't start tumbling. *IF* it used fins somehow, I'm sure that is what would keep it stable in flight instead.

    • More likely they slightly adjust the centre of gravity while the bullet is rotating. Adjusting the mass internally would be simpler and more reliable then fins.

      IIRC most of our military rounds are intentionally weighted off center so they tumble after hitting a target instead of leaving a straight exit wound. I'm thinking these things might just be bullets with fins and springs to keep the flight path straight. You'd be amazed how much a little wind can affect a bullet at 100 or 200 yards, let alone long distance shots, when you consider how short the duration of their flight is and how much kinetic energy they have in such a dense object.

      • The mass could be moved forward and back without changing the direction of the bullet - so long as the bullet is rotating. If it stops rotating, say by hitting an object, then it would absolutely start to tumble. But I was referring to moving the mass perpendicular to that. Basically a pendulum inside the bullet. This would result in the bullet tumbling right away if not controlled. But if controlled, could be used to direct the bullet - at least in theory.
      • While in the Marines I had to take regular rifle qualification tests. One year I was in Okinawa for the test and the weather was crazy that day. There are wind flags on the range that are supposed to help you adjust. For the 500 yard shots there are three flags between you and the target. On that day they were all blowing in different directions, which I could have dealt with, but they also kept changing directions. Normally a high scoring expert (the top of three possible qualifications) I barely pass

    • Re:Fins - probably not. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @04:13PM (#49572675) Homepage

      This is the most information I could find. Maybe someone else can do better:

      Design and Demonstration of a Guided Bullet for Extreme Precision Engagement of Targets at Long Range Performing for the DARPA Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) program, the team developed a revolutionary .50 caliber bullet guidance system that will be used to produce the smallest, fastest, highest g projectile to date that is fully guided. To perform across a 70,000-g launch acceleration, they designed a first-of-a-kind, two-body bullet with a decoupled aft section that despins from 120,000 to 0 rpm in under 300 ms. This required the implementation of an innovative, alternator controlled, despun aft section that provides sufficient maneuverability but low drag for the bullet to remain supersonic out to maximum range.
      The team worked within an 11-month time frame to deliver a system that exceeded all of the accuracy requirements across a variety of night- and daytime ranges, moving targets, wind speeds and directions, and other environmental conditions. The effort culminated in May with a physics and experimentally-based, fully integrated hardware- and software-in-the-loop demonstration that not only validated superior system performance, but also exceeded designated product requirements over all ranges and all target motion challenges. For this accomplishment, the program was recently awarded Phase II to continue the design and development of the guidance mechanics and electronics in collaboration with a commercial sponsor. The outstanding technical achievements demonstrated in the design, fabrication, simulation, and testing of this miniaturized guidance system are well-deserving of this award.

      http://www.draper.com/Document... [draper.com] (page 109)

      There's also a picture of a model that differs from those that appear in most other press releases.

      From what I could find out, it looks like Draper Laboratories does the Guidance, Navigation, and Control (the interesting part), Teledyne does the optical target acquisition/locking (semi interesting), and Orbital ATK makes the ammunition part -- probably primer, charge, casing, and shell.

      • A two-body bullet? Impressive. Thanks for the link.

        If they are using a two-body bullet then there are plenty of ways they could control it. For example, directing a slow burn solid fuel "jet".

  • Expect to see every Barney Fife explaining the unfortunate collateral damage on the 6pm news.

  • Am I the only one who thought of that scene from Roger Rabbit?
  • And at the cost of $10,000 per bullet they will become the mandated ordnance by Congress despite probably costing 30 cents per bullet to produce. Just like the switch from naval artillery to "smart" missiles.
    • Missiles are better due to longer engagement ranges. There are a few narrow applications where naval bombardment would still be the optimum choice, amphibious landing support for example, but those cases can generally be dealt with using a combination of other weapons. Don't get me wrong, main gun fire kicks ass, but it's just not as useful as it used to be for ship to ship combat.
      • Ship to ship combat is a thing of the past, excluding sub vs sub or patrol boat vs patrol boat. Big guns are for raining cheap and efficient death along the shoreline and 25 miles inland. Should at least have big guns on ships like the Wasp and America.
        • However that would require that we have big gun warships which as you pointed out aren't much use for other roles. It's easier to just make use of missile cruisers and air strikes to fill the same role. As a former Marine, yeah I'd prefer naval gunfire, but that's just not an efficient choice for the navy.
          • You can have multiple role ships, they could design amphibious assault ships with one or two turrets. Ships like HMS Bulwark could have been designed to carry a 16in turret fore.
            • Where the heck would you put it? Besides, a gun system like that has a lot of requirements in terms of ship structure, magazine space, crew overhead, power systems etc. Trying to tack all of that on to an amphibious assault vessel just doesn't make any sense. I'm pro big guns, and I think there may still be some role for a battleship of some kind, but it's definitely not going to be the same as something like the Iowa class.

              The biggest issue is engagement range and projectile flight time. The mark 7

    • Even at 10K/round that wouldn't be crazy compared to the cost of training the sniper and getting them in and out of the area.

  • ...to kill more brown people in the desert...

  • This will have two results:

    1) Reduce labor/soldier costs the elite pay to suppress the rest of us, since now they can hire the dumbest of the dumb and still expect them to kill anyone who opposes them. They're easier to brainwash, too, so they're more reliable.

    2) The terrorists will now more easily bankrupt the U.S. since each shot fired will now cost $$$.

  • Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @02:07PM (#49571649)
    I'm so proud that the US government will spare no amount of time, effort, or money in developing new ways to kill people. Killing people is much more important than health, education, social services, and the non-war economy.
  • Because the more correct initialism, "EATO" sounded too much like the bullets should be covered with orange powder.
  • Looking at the video they look like they are more then bullets, they appear to have some sort of internal propulsion, and they seem to change speed.
  • I hear battery life is really really short.

  • Now, George was a good straight boy to begin with,
    but there was bad blood in him someway
    he got into the magic bullets and
    that leads straight to Devil's work
    just like marywanna leads to heroin
    You think you can take them bullets and leave 'em, do you?
    Just save a few for your bad days.
    well...

    Well, now we all have those bad days when we can't hit for shit.

    The more of them magics you use,
    the more bad days you have without them
    So it comes down to finally
    all your days being bad without the bullets
    It's magics or no

  • ... self driving cars. And we will be able to order a drive-by from an iPhone app.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close