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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Additionally, vastly superior technology doesn't necessarily outweigh other factors. It certainly makes a huge difference but history is littered with counterexamples.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
>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).
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.
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.
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.
Realizing that the United States' military capabilities are good enough, DARPA employees have turned their attention to replicating scenes from video game boss battles.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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?
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.
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.'
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
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.
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.
[+] [-] ArikBe|11 years ago|reply
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|11 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ErikRogneby|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
The biggest threat is well paid mercenaries. It always has been.
[+] [-] wwwwwwwwww|11 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] wyager|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thecoffman|11 years ago|reply
Additionally, vastly superior technology doesn't necessarily outweigh other factors. It certainly makes a huge difference but history is littered with counterexamples.
[+] [-] noblethrasher|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ranran876|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pessimizer|11 years ago|reply
If by "we" you mean you and me, and people like us. Plenty of people are skipping meals to save money.
[+] [-] geon|11 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] jeffdavis|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] walterbell|11 years ago|reply
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/antz/
[+] [-] sosborn|11 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] ctdonath|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoMoreNicksLeft|11 years ago|reply
We should do away with the one we have now.
[+] [-] tsotha|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anemitz|11 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] joshvm|11 years ago|reply
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/
[+] [-] callmeed|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hawkharris|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ENGNR|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zelphyr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elinchrome|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dm2|11 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] iandanforth|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edwhitesell|11 years ago|reply
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."
[+] [-] ultimoo|11 years ago|reply
Or is it something more ground-breakingly advanced?
[+] [-] nostrademons|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thefreeman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
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.'
[+] [-] EGreg|11 years ago|reply
Translation: those poor suckers who try running sideways will still get hit with these new bullets.
[+] [-] bane|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RyJones|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melvinmt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bootload|11 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] gamegoblin|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] finishingmove|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keehun|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pyrocat|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshvm|11 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QADr4hVKs3Y
[+] [-] cromwellian|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haptiK|11 years ago|reply
/thread
Seriously though. How do they plan to designate the target for this round?
[+] [-] NoMoreNicksLeft|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomcam|11 years ago|reply