So DARPA posted a new video with an update to their EXACTO guided bullet program. With the repeated successfull hits shown how long do yall think it will be until the ammo finally leaves the lab (bonus points for guessing cost per round)
DARPA isn't a research lab in the same way that BAE or the Skunkworks/Phantomworks are research labs that develop technologies.
DARPA funds defense-related research that is done by private companies and academics. Those people actually do the research, but it is funded by the government.
Most of what DARPA funds is not weapons-technology, it's national defense technology.
They fund a lot of stuff- biotech, robotics, materials science, computer science, etc. I recently went to see a DARPA program manager give a talk about supply chain verification for electronic components. It was about how they funding research into ensuring that electronic components are genuine, reliable, and that nobody has inserted malicious functionality into computer chips.
It's just a race to the bottom. How is it actually guided? Heat seeking? Laser? Prior programming of terrain contours and destination?
If it has to find a target, well, it's going to be given a target. Expect to see a lot more helpless women and children human shields on the front lines and we have noone to blame but ourselves.
Not to mention it's more dangerous to us than it is to the (current) enemy. They have no irreplaceable commanders, they're just a bunch of towelheads one as poor and desperate as the next. We trust the next Iraq with them, they split and run at the first sign of trouble, and suddenly they have the means for an unskilled durka to take out officers or visiting generals with shots that would've been far outside their skill previously.
It's the same as the US's current status as the world's undeniable, indefatigable military leader of the world. No sane country or person would ever hope to challenge the US military and win.
So what do we get? Insane religious fanatics that try anyway.
The bumfuckistan is the US testbed for new toys.
Need to test new stuff? Spark a war, export democracy, test how well your new toys works, place a figurehead that will gladly grant you resources you might want
>Reminder that in 1962 the US military had a laser beam that they could point at the Kremlin windows, detect the microscopic vibrations on the glass and decode those vibrations into transcripts of what the people inside were saying
>in NINETEEN FUCKING SIXTY TWO before most of your parents were even BORN
>Reminder that the B2 Spirit stealth bomber flew its first combat sortie almost 3 decades ago
>Reminder that this "new" so called EXACTO round is decades old technology that has now been declassified
>No sane country or person would ever hope to challenge the US military and win.
In a pitched battle, sure. But by forcing it into a dirty, ugly fight and surviving, they can erode the USA's international position, put it in conflict against itself, and demoralize its military.
So it's just laser guided then.
Why, oh god why, would we spend all that money to develop a gun that can't miss? Has NOBODY thought of what would happen if our enemies got hold of that? We are made more accurate by our better training and budgets, something our enemy will never have. If we reduce all that to simple technology, they can take it and instantly have the same abilities. Especially when it's something as portable and stealable as a gun/ammo.
Hey /k/, you know that this opens the gate for a REAL FUCKING SMARTGUN right?
> Aim with eyepiece
> Fire from your steadycam mount
> Hit shit like a pro
Aliums, here we come
>we shouldn't develop this technology because teh enemey could use it against us!
that's a fucking retarded logic, everything can be used against you if you let it fall into enemy hands
manpads, anti material rifles, bombs, it doesn't matter
They're just generic weapons. They don't give the enemy any significant advantage they didn't already have. Sure, you've got an M16, but you still have no idea how to shoot it, so you're not much more dangerous. Sure, you got a bomb, but you had bombs anyway.
Certain things are game changers. There's a reason MANPADs are tightly controlled. These are literally just guns that you can guarantee will be lost to the enemy at some point in time, and provide a massive advantage they could not get any other way.
>Certain things are game changers
>sniper rifle with boosted accuracy
I don't think you realize how small of an impact the choice of firearm of an individual soldier has on the outcome of a war
a sniper rifle with increased hit ratio isn't gonna turn the tides into your favor just by merely existing
and neither will it suddenly triple the casualty rate among your own soldiers, should a cache of them fall into enemy hands
Sure, everything is secret, decades-old technology that's just declassified as it goes?
You don't know how R&D works friend.
FYI, the challenge in this project isn't developing new tracking technology, it's miniaturizing an existing technology so that it fits inside a .50 cal bullet. They need micro-sized aerodynamic control, a processor, and a power supply that fits in a bullet.
Combine this with a man portable CROWS and you can eliminate sniping as a high skill position. A team just sets up a gun. The E4 uses the weapon, the NCO leads the team and designates targets, and the privates secure the area.
This terrifies me.
I've always wanted to be a soldier, but it would be a nightmare to be the test case for all this new technology. Part of the reason why casualties were so horrendous in the Civil War and WW1 was because old generals didn't adapt to new technologies and strategies. I don't want to be like those kids who were ordered to march into machine gun fire or participate in a modern day picket's charge
Don't underestimate this shit. Any random, untrained, jittery 14-year-old boy becomes the greatest marksman the world has ever seen.
Think of batteries of these things. A radio signal is sent. Twenty shots are simultaneously fired. Twenty men are simultaneously struck and killed by .50 caliber bullets. Nobody came within a mile of them.
>Any random, untrained, jittery 14-year-old boy becomes the greatest marksman the world has ever seen.
literally the only thing this technology takes out of the equation of a sniper is elevation and windage adjustment, add proper leading for when the target is moving
that's it, it won't do the rest of the sniping for you
if you're unable to pull of mid range shots with a normal rifle you won't be able to keep your crosshair on target for a 1 mile guided shot either, if you even manage to spot the other guy - after all you're just a dumb 14yr old goatfucker who has never had any sort of recon training
you're interpreting way too much into those bullets
>Think of batteries of these things. A radio signal is sent. Twenty shots are simultaneously fired. Twenty men are simultaneously struck and killed by .50 caliber bullets. Nobody came within a mile of them.
top fucking kek
>I would imagine this technology being used for artillery on a gunship and such.
>the whole point of the project is to add miniature aerodynamics into a .50 round
are you fucking kidding me
guided artillery has been done already, it's not even remotely related to what this project is trying to accomplish
The real potential for this is robotic warfare. Imagine this thing instantly killing twenty insurgents from a mile in the sky.
Less collateral damage, win hearts and minds
>Any random, untrained, jittery 14-year-old boy becomes the greatest marksman the world has ever seen.
>Twenty shots are simultaneously fired. Twenty men are simultaneously struck and killed by .50 caliber bullets.
You're a fucking retard.
The next thing to go will be the rifle barrel. Remember Gyrojet?
Kind of a joke, right? But what if it's guided? Not so fucking funny anymore. You can pull off a 2 mile godshot with a pistol-sized launcher. You can fire it off from a quadcopter, or from a static emplacement that looks like a brick in a wall or a bird's nest.
What we're looking at here is the extreme miniaturization and proliferation of the guided missile, and it's going to change everything.
This is the start of the personal-scale ICBM. People are going to have Mutually Assured Destruction strategies with their next-door neighbors.
Fuck this future.
You think a cheap machine can't point a laser for you?
This isn't going to depend on a steady hand. Notice that the video showed "Untrained First-Time Use of a Sniper Rifle".
You're going to tag your target with the equivalent of a mouse click. Even fucking smartphones can keep track of a person on camera for a few seconds.
>literally the only thing this technology takes out of the equation of a sniper is elevation and windage adjustment, add proper leading for when the target is moving
So it eliminates vertical inaccuracy, horizontal inaccuracy and the need to predict where your target will be?
What the fuck else is "the rest" of sniping when you can guide the bullet in flight?
There's a lot more to sniping, which is also sneaking around and figuring out where the bullets should go, as distinguished from marksmanship, which is simply putting bullets on target.
>Let's give these untrained guerrilla fighters perfect accuracy, it won't make a damn bit of difference
>not like they're already good at sneaking around and figuring out who to shoot
Yes, but the tests are being done on a controlled firing range and not in actual combat conditions.
And either way, somebody is going to eventually develop it. DARPA's entire point of existence is to beat others to the punch.
Except most guerillas can't afford decent sniper rifles, much less ones that will use a presumably tightly controlled special ammunition type and advanced optics needed to guide them.
>DARPA's entire point of existence is to beat others to the punch.
Remember how in every discussion of modern war, there's a lot of talk about misguided leadership fighting the last big war?
The US military-industrial complex is still organized around WW2 thinking. Like there's some terrible enemy they must defeat, so they need to research and deploy new and better weapons to use against them.
In WW2, this made total sense. You built your weapons to get an advantage, then you defeated the enemy, and the enemy was done fighting and you had won.
But in this nuclear standoff era, trying to keep well ahead of the enemy is like a dog trying to run from its own tail. The faster it runs, the faster its tail is pulled behind it. There's no final victory to be had. New technology you develop will not be put to much use before it's adopted by others. The advantage gained is small and very temporary, while the overall potential for violence grows and grows, and weaker and poorer and more desperate people are made into increasingly credible threats.
Um, thanks for proving my point?
The US gives humvees and M1s away like candy to the middle east, and they make sure none of it is equal to or more advanced than what they have for exactly this reason.
America doesn't succeed at things like the Iraq invasion because of cutting edge technology that nobody else has, but because of the sheer amount of money they can throw at the problem.
They support a large professional military with large elite units and actually give them lots of good training. They equip them properly, make sure they all have proper food, ammunition, fuel, and whatever living arrangements can reasonably be provided under the circumstances. They can afford to fly them to the other side of the world, and even rotate them home from war zones.
They don't also need superior new technology, especially when that technology is inevitably going to fall into others' hands.
War is not only fought between soldiers. It's not just about winning and losing. By developing new weapons, which are inevitably popularized, you make bad-intentioned people more capable of doing harm. You'd think that this lesson would have been taken to heart after the atomic bomb.
>all this MUH ENEMIES
yall sound like those people who argue aganst carrying a gun because badguys will steal it an kill you
It will be highly interesting if they switch to this. The biggest problem will be an ever changing CG. As the propellant burns you get more nose heavy, and an uneven burn makes for a lopsided round.
>These are literally just guns that you can guarantee will be lost to the enemy at some point in time
Nigger, do you honestly think that they are just going to issue this to every soldier? It's currently fired out of a .50 BMG rifle, do you want to guess how often .50 BMG rifles are issued? Just because this is a just a gun doesn't mean it won't be as hard to get as MANPADs.
You do know that there are already countermeasures for this being developed, right? Keep in find that this article is from 5 years ago and man portable handheld models exist:
>The faster it runs, the faster its tail is pulled behind it. There's no final victory to be had. New technology you develop will not be put to much use before it's adopted by others. The advantage gained is small and very temporary
Nigger it has ALWAYS been like this, and if you decide that you just want to play catchup all the time with what everyone else has you will always be behind and at a severe disadvantage.
>and weaker and poorer and more desperate people are made into increasingly credible threats.
Poor huh? So poor that you think they can easily acquire laser guided bullets?
How does it change course?
Can you still call it a bullet?
>if you decide that you just want to play catchup all the time with what everyone else has you will always be behind and at a severe disadvantage.
First of all, there's a difference between keeping up and trying to get so far ahead that you're untouchable. I never suggested that it would be reasonable to fall behind.
Secondly: at a disadvantage for what, exactly? This is the fucking NUCLEAR age. Any serious rival can annihilate any other.
>Poor huh? So poor that you think they can easily acquire laser guided bullets?
Yeah man, it's not like we're in some freaky Jetsons future where ordinary people carry around pocket supercomputers that can talk to each other from anywhere in the world.
Technology always stays expensive forever, and nobody steals or captures equipment.
>and trying to get so far ahead that you're untouchable
You would have to be stupid if you believe the people developing these weapons think they will make countries untouchable. They are simply small, incremental advancements from what is currently issued.
>This is the fucking NUCLEAR age. Any serious rival can annihilate any other.
You are stupid, aren't you. If you had half a brain in your head you would realize that serious rivals fight each other with proxy wars and not nukes.
>Technology always stays expensive forever, and nobody steals or captures equipment.
Which is why all insurgent groups have an abundance of MANPADs, considering they've been around since the 60s, oh wait they don't and they have to resort to volley firing RPG-7s at low flying helicopters. If the technology is heavily regulated from when it first comes into existence it won't become common for a long time.
Why would this horrify you. If you be an American your nation will likely be the only one using this technology for a good deal of time. You'll be out of service by the time it is fielded by other nations. I also doubt that anyone else would be willing to spend money on it to the extent that anyone other that special forces will get to use it.
Everybody in the thread thinks you're a retard and this argument is killing discussion.
But I'm curious, do you think we should be throwing away some of the technology we already have and reverting to a 90's or 80's military because it does more harm than good when the insurgents inevitably get massive amounts of all of our gear? Or is it just new technology that you blindly oppose?
>They are simply small, incremental advancements from what is currently issued.
The Americans would never stop, though. There is no amount of advantage which is sufficient over potential adversaries. They keep trying to push farther ahead, both forcing and enabling others to chase after them.
This is what I mean by a dog trying to run away from its own tail.
>serious rivals fight each other with proxy wars
This is not a sane or stable arrangement. If one side threatens the other with nuclear consequences for their actions in a "proxy war", then what? Proxy wars are a mutually consensual sport.
>do you think we should be throwing away some of the technology
Why would you think that?
>the insurgents inevitably get massive amounts of all of our gear
You're obviously only thinking of this on a short-term, tactical level, considering only present enemies.
I'll point out what I said before:
> By developing new weapons, which are inevitably popularized, you make bad-intentioned people more capable of doing harm.
You say "our gear" like we're all one team. Are you a soldier? Do you always agree with the goals and methods of your superiors? Do you suppose you'll be a soldier forever?
We've had a democratic age, because of the factory and the rifle. They made men near-equal in many important ways.
We will not have a democratic age in the time of the robotic factory, the robotic weapon, and the surveillance state. Significance is being stripped from the ordinary person, the elite are weaning themselves off of workers and soldiers. Technology of total oppression is being developed in the name of fighting oppression.
Why bother posting the cheesy, unoriginal, and occasionally pretentious action flick of war-games. Yay a shitty CoD rip off of stuff that has already been done before and done much better.
>A-10 Warthog needs revamp to avoid the scrap heap
>Loading takes awhile
>So instead of reloading, make a system the retrieves rounds after being fired.
>Attach wire to each round
>Press the button that retrieves the rounds.
Boom. DARPA give me a job.
>Imagine this thing instantly killing twenty III%ers from a mile in the sky.
The gap is widening to monstrous proportions between civilian and government military power and /k/ is cheering.
FYI, the laser eavesdropping device is easy as fuck to make. It's a laser diode, a photodetector and a battery powered amplifier. I've made one. less than $10 invested. There are instructions all over the net with directions.
Granted it was more difficult in 1962 but it's not a huge feat of engineering.
>They keep trying to push farther ahead, both forcing and enabling others to chase after them.
...and if they didn't then they would be the ones chasing. It has always been like this.
>This is not a sane or stable arrangement.
Protip: wars have been fought like that for decades
They will probably only see see extremely limited use by trained SF snipers at best within the next 2 decades.
More likely than use by ground soldiers, their guidance system may get integrated into the hardware package for next gen attack helicopters, or retrofitted onto current gens.
You know those IR birdeye cams where all the "bad guys" get torn to shreds but what seems like wildly innaccurate weapons fire?
well imagine if each round was guided into the nearest hotspot to the point of aim?
LETHAL effectiveness like nothing to come before.
German had Stermgewehrs matey.
AK47s wouldn't have made a substantial difference at all.
>German had Stermgewehrs
....Yeah, they started rolling out just in time for the Allies to finish raping Berlin's dead corpse.
You really think the STG-44 was something they at any point except for well after the outcome of the war was decided?
DARPA is a real thing, it used to be called ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) until 1972.
They create some pretty impressive stuff. For example, they created the first computer networks that would go on to become the internet. More recently they've played a huge role in unmanned aerial drones and autonomously driven vehicles.
They're actually willing to talk about a lot of the stuff they fund. That sounds strange, given that they work so heavily on defense projects, but remember that DARPA is a funding agency that gives money to companies and scientists who think they can develop a game-changing technology. They have to talk about what they do so that people know what they want to develop. Obviously, there are things they don't talk about.
Sometimes people will come to DARPA and pitch an idea that they think the government would be interested in. DARPA also publishes solicitations periodically that anyone can submit an application for. For example:
> DARPA is interested in hardware and software
> solutions that enable an autonomous lookout
> from a surface vessel; specifically, information
> on technologies that automate a "lookout by
> sight" from sea surface vessels. COLREGS
> Rule 5 states, "Every vessel shall at all times
> maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing
> as well as by all available means appropriate in
> the prevailing circumstances and conditions so
> as to make a full appraisal of the situation and
> of the risk of collision."
>████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████Agent███████████due to████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████shame█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████CIA████████████████████████████████████████horses██████████peanut butter████████████████████suspended███████████████.
You can't even see people two miles away with your unaided eyes, but I would love it if you could aim a gyrojet pistol and it would always hit the target with no rise or drop.
The only disadvantage vs modern ammo is the low muzzle velocity and high cost at that point.