Guided .50 cal bullets
DARPA’s Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO) program recently conducted the first successful live-fire tests demonstrating in-flight guidance of .50-caliber bullets. This video shows EXACTO rounds maneuvering in flight to hit targets that are offset from where the sniper rifle is initially aimed:
July 13th, 2014 at 4:04 pm
Way cool!
July 13th, 2014 at 5:22 pm
Although this is cool, I have gut to wonder… Why? This seems like an answer to a question no one was asking.
July 13th, 2014 at 7:25 pm
And if the current trend continues soon to be used on US citizens on US soil.
July 13th, 2014 at 7:55 pm
I have a suspicion this weapon will not work that well in an active war zone. Too many variables prevent regular use.
Actually it is an answer to a question. The question is: “How do we as generals micromanage our troops to the point of controlling where their bullets go?”
It follows current US military policy of defining,labeling,and packaging every facet of war.
Anyone remember the short story ‘Superiority’? There you have it.
July 14th, 2014 at 2:29 am
Wait for the brainstorm to make it “multi-mission capable”.
It won’t do anything well then.
July 14th, 2014 at 8:38 am
To the guy asking why, you can’t see the utility in being able to get a very high probability of first round impact on a moving target? No more guessing about cross winds are target speed, just put the crosshairs on the target and pull the trigger.
For anybody else bashing it, part of me wonders if your ancestors did the same with smart munitions when they started development post-WWII. One bomb one target? pft who needs that? Just give me a flight of BUFFs loaded down with ordinance and we’ll carpet bomb!
July 14th, 2014 at 9:36 am
While reading about this I immediately thought of the Tom Selleck flick Runaway. The one with the heat seeking boolit.
http://youtu.be/heMboVN12r0
The best thing in the movie though was Cynthia Rhodes.
July 14th, 2014 at 10:06 am
“To the guy asking why, you can’t see the utility in being able to get a very high probability of first round impact on a moving target? No more guessing about cross winds are target speed, just put the crosshairs on the target and pull the trigger.”
If that is, indeed, what it does that’d be a useful gadget. However, based on the video alone, it looks like the round simply hits something other than what the rifle was aimed at that the targeting system was already aimed at… Changing one static target for a second.
I’m sure the guys at DARPA are a helluva lot smarter than me, but they aren’t known for fiscal restraint either!
July 14th, 2014 at 12:17 pm
Voila! The ZF-1.
It’s light. Handle’s adjustable for easy carrying, good for righties and lefties. Breaks down into four parts, undetectable by x-ray, ideal for quick, discreet interventions. A word on firepower. Titanium recharger, three thousand round clip with bursts of three to three hundred, and with the Replay button – another Zorg invention – it’s even easier.
July 14th, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Ish & Paul Kisling —
It’s DARPA. Of COURSE it isn’t quite ready for primetime. They are supposed to be playing around beyond the “bleeding edge of technology” on blue-sky “What If?” and “Wouldn’t it be neat if we could. . . ” ideas. That’s the whole reason they exist.
July 14th, 2014 at 2:48 pm
More to the point, if I can make a steerable .50 caliber round 9regardless of how the guidance system is signalled), I can DAMNED sure make a laser designated or homing 25mm, 30mm, 105mm NATO, or 120mm Rheinmetal smoothbore round. . .
Hmmm. . . onboard ADA capability for almost every single AFV with a main gun in service, WITHOUT adding any new equipment? Just issue a couple of ADA rounds if there is any credible air threat? How could THAT possibly be useful? [/sarc]
July 14th, 2014 at 4:15 pm
@Geodkyt. Another thing Darpa is well known for is developing weapons that have no true battlefield expediency. Javelin, Nuclear Mortar,Nike,Caseless ammo, Saboted ammo, xm29, xm25, and a whole slew of other projects.
@aerodawg. Precision guided munition have been around since WW2. Cluster bombs from around the same time.
Carpet bombing has a different purpose than precision bombing. It is to discourage both the enemy and the enemy populous by taking away everything they have.
Cluster bombs are more effective at terrorizing populations long after the weapon was used due to unexploded warheads.. Kind of inconvenient when one is helping the population to rebuild…
July 14th, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Although the “first shot kill” gains the greatest accolades, there are many cases where the spotter needs to help the shooter adjust their aim over several shots to hit the target. During this time, friendly forces may be taking casualties. A higher-likelihood of a first-round hit is desirable, though that must of course be balanced against things like weight, reliability, and cost.
July 15th, 2014 at 12:08 pm
Another application for this sort of thing would be to shoot around obstacles. Say you know through drone video that a target is 20 meters behind some obstacle that prevents you from taking a direct shot at them. This would allow you to shoot at an offset point close by, and have the bullet guided to the proper spot.
July 15th, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Paul — Yup, when you always swing for the fences, you WILL miss occaisionally.
However, you don’t think saboted ammo is of any use on the battlefield? Despite the fact that we (along with almost every other military in the world) have been using it quite successfully in combat in ground, air, and naval mounts for decades? Admittedly, saboted ammunition for 5.56mm rifles didn’t pan out – but the R&D effort in thqat (DECADES after saboted ammo had already been proven highly combat effective. . . by using it in combat) led DIRECTLY to some very effective MACHINE GUN ammunition.
Javelin is no good? Hmmm. . . looking at Javelin’s performance and characteristics, and comparing them to what it replaced (M47 Dragon, which I know fairly well), and I’d say it was well worth it. It only lacks a true battlefield expediency if there’s no armor around. Go figure — antiarmor weapons are pretty much specialized to kill armor, not infantry. . . (Although the sight unit makes a Hell of an observation device, I understand.)
The nuclear mortar WAS a very effective weapon, for the threat faced at the time, with the force structure available, when used as designed and trained. Just like the nuclear torpedo (that had a destruction radius greater than it’s nominal range). The trick is, those destruction ranges are based on direct line of sight unshielded by terrain. . . so they were intended (and planned, and trained) to be used ONLY when there was a large enough terrain feature between gun and target — and in BOTH cases (torpedo and mortar), those firing points were PREDETEMINED IN PEACETIME. (No, you DO NOT send a corporal or sergeant who is the gun captain for a mortar and issue him nuclear rounds for indiscriminate use. “Special Munitions” useage is VERY carefully planned in advance — usually by a field grade Ordnance Corps officer with a specialty in WMDs.)
What was wrong with Nike? It worked, as designed. yes, it was rendered obsolete by later Soviet developments.