Slashdot Mirror


Self-Guided Bullet Can Hit Targets a Mile Away

New submitter jpwilliams writes "Gizmag reports that researchers at Sandia National Laboratories have tested a 10-centimeter bullet that can be fired from a smooth-bore rifle to hit a laser-marked target one mile away. The bullet 'includes an optical sensor in the nose to detect a laser beam on a target. The sensor sends information to guidance and control electronics that use an algorithm in an eight-bit central processing unit to command electromagnetic actuators. These actuators steer tiny fins that guide the bullet to the target.' Interestingly, accuracy improves with targets that are further away, because 'the bullet's motions settle the longer it is in flight.'"

421 comments

  1. Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Interesting. If you were looking for gun.nut and came to slashdot by mistake.

    1. Re:Hmmmmm by Antidamage · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Hey, it's Slashdot. We can still find ways to break it.

      I was thinking, this: http://goo.gl/d52rX

    2. Re:Hmmmmm by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No offence, but is there any good reason to use domain name shorteners when posting links in forums / blogs? Surely it's easier and quicker to just copy and paste the original url, which actually has the additional benefit of giving us a clue as to where it leads to? Or maybe you're interested in the click stats Goo.gl provides?

      Having said that, I can see from your /. comments history that you're not an idiot so I did follow the link, which for anyone else interested, resolves to http://www.instructables.com/id/Laser-Ball/.

    3. Re:Hmmmmm by Inda · · Score: 1

      I hate them too, but am forced to use them on certain forums. The other users get frightened by URLs that are over 10 characters long, and I get cussed. Ever seen a Google URL to an image on their image search? Over 400 characters and they do look ugly. It could take up the whole post.

      It's just as quick and easy to use. Install the Firefox addon, right click, copy.

      But I hate them. I hate the to the point where I've complained about the BBC using them. What with having to pay them, and all that.

      They're a phisher's dream.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    4. Re:Hmmmmm by Tsingi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have snipers that can do that with pieces of lead.

    5. Re:Hmmmmm by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      Sure do, TFA even says so.

    6. Re:Hmmmmm by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Yep they can do it with a piece of lead, but the thing is, now you take a group of very skilled shooters, whom don't have the skills to hide like a sniper and bang, on target multiple hits from very great distances. or cannon fodder troops with this sort of weapon, sniper get's the laser in the target area and people just keep shooting till they get killed LOL

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    7. Re:Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lasers may have authenticating carrier signals encoded into their shine...

      For example, a an on-board chip might be integrated into the bullet, and synchronized with the illuminator, so that the bullet knows specifically which bright spot to home in on. The on-board optics and electronics might have a spectral analyzer, which looks for specific bright lines.

      In other words, you might have to record the beam and maybe recover some in-tact bullets, before you can hack the beam's signal and create false positives. This might require getting shot at, or catching a spotter team by surprise...

    8. Re:Hmmmmm by Jappus · · Score: 1

      I hate them too, but am forced to use them on certain forums. The other users get frightened by URLs that are over 10 characters long, and I get cussed. Ever seen a Google URL to an image on their image search? Over 400 characters and they do look ugly. It could take up the whole post.
      [...]
      They're a phisher's dream.

      That's why there's another phisher's dream in HTML (or BBCode, for all that matters):

      <a href="Some_long_url">please click here</a>

      You could even abbreviate the target instead of writing "please click here"; and some forums/commentary software will even do that for you, by annotating the link by its FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name), stripping out the "nasty" bits.

      Ohh, and of course you can use it more nefariously like that:

      <a href="www.paypal.is.what.im.phishing.ng">www.paypal.com</a>

    9. Re:Hmmmmm by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Yep they can do it with a piece of lead, but the thing is, now you take a group of very skilled shooters, whom don't have the skills to hide like a sniper and bang, on target multiple hits from very great distances. or cannon fodder troops with this sort of weapon, sniper get's the laser in the target area and people just keep shooting till they get killed LOL

      All for the low low price of $5k per shot. ??? It doesn't actually say how much it costs, but what does it matter? No one questions the defense budget in the US.

      All I'm saying is that it's something that we can currently do with a piece of lead.

    10. Re:Hmmmmm by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      No offence, but is there any good reason to use domain name shorteners when posting links in forums / blogs?

      Is linking to Goat.se (sp?) not a good reason?

    11. Re:Hmmmmm by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      is there any good reason to use domain name shorteners when posting links in forums / blogs?

      I can think of a few.

      1. To get you look at goatse (which is why I NEVER follow short links)
      2. He's a twitter twit with little to say and less room to say it and forgets that he's not limited to a short twit-like tweet
      3. He's young and does it because "everybody" else does.

      To the GP, TFS makes me think of Roger Rabbit.

      Bullet 1: "Which way did he go?"
      Bullet 2: "He went that away!"
      Detective: "Sheesh -- dumdums."

    12. Re:Hmmmmm by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I hate them too, but am forced to use them on certain forums. The other users get frightened by URLs that are over 10 characters long, and I get cussed.

      Why are you on morons.org? You're not one of them! Do you enjoy conversing with idiots? next time they curse you for a long URL, apologize and use a goo.gl link to goatse just to educate the retards as to why URL shorteners are an incredibly BAD idea and following them even worse.

      Install the Firefox addon

      Fuck that, I have too much crap installed already. Adblock and the like are bad enough.

      Sorry if I sem a bit curt this afternoon, Windows pissed me off at lunch. I journaled about it in a text editor, now I'm getting a 503 trying to get to my journal to post the damned thing. Did somebody slashdot slashdot by linking to slashdot from slashdot? Gees, this place is going downhill fast...

    13. Re:Hmmmmm by jimbolauski · · Score: 2

      The bullet has 1/3 the muzzle velocity of a regular 50cal, can't be used in current rifles as a smooth barrel is needed, and costs 200x's as much as a regular bullet. Due to these issues it will never be integrated into regular forces, the only real use is for assassination because one shot is all a sniper gets in those situations before they have to evacuate. If you have 8in accuracy from 1.5miles away no matter the wind you have an effective weapon for a very specialized use outside of that there are not many situations where the weapon can out-compete traditional bullets to justify the cost.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    14. Re:Hmmmmm by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The difference is, with <a href="www.goat.se">Wall Street Journal</a> when you mouse over the link, the real URL shows up at the bottom of your screen. Not so with shortened goatse links.

    15. Re:Hmmmmm by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      If you have 8in accuracy from 1.5miles away no matter the wind you have an effective weapon for a very specialized use outside of that there are not many situations where the weapon can out-compete traditional bullets to justify the cost.

      Yes, good use case.

    16. Re:Hmmmmm by Jappus · · Score: 1

      While that may certainly be true, it was not what the parent posting of mine was referring to. The point made therein was that people don't like to stare at long URLs, but that it's also bad to use URL-shorteners which totally hide the link -- which is exactly why you can just use anchor-tags. That solution occupies exactly the middle-ground, as people don't need to see the long link, but can, if they want to.

      The point is, that if you're not manually typing in URLs or have to squeeze them into an annoyingly artificial size limit, there's absolutely no non-nefarious reason to use link shorteners.

    17. Re:Hmmmmm by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, my original point was not to misdirect the bullet but to blind it. You try detecting modulation in a field of sensor-overloading laser dots.

      Also, sorry for short-linking. Yes, it's a habit from being forced to on forums that don't allow linking code and break long URLs into pieces.

    18. Re:Hmmmmm by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and I do agree that a giant gaping anus would very easily repel bullets with optical sensors. It's almost the perfect defence.

  2. Dart Maybe? by avandesande · · Score: 3

    Sounds more like a dart than a bullet.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Dart Maybe? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds more like a dart than a bullet.

      The real trick is training the sharks to fire the rifles.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Dart Maybe? by squidflakes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds more like it is laser-guided than self-guided too.

    3. Re:Dart Maybe? by noh8rz2 · · Score: 1

      No, laser guided implies that there are lasers on the bullet that are helping to measure its location wrt it's surroundings. Instead, the laser just paints a target; it guides itself to the target. Hence, self guided.

    4. Re:Dart Maybe? by noh8rz2 · · Score: 2

      Can't snipers already hit a target a mile out, without needing million dollar bullets?

    5. Re:Dart Maybe? by similar_name · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, laser guided implies that there are lasers on the bullet that are helping to measure its location wrt it's surroundings. Instead, the laser just paints a target; it guides itself to the target. Hence, self guided.

      Laser Guidance

    6. Re:Dart Maybe? by bamwham · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But it costs money (no idea how much) to train that sniper, and if they are injured you've lost their value. Whereas if the guy using this gun is injured the person next to them can pick it up and use it. Not an expert of course...

    7. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Yep. In the right conditions, you can get a headshot at 5 miles.

    8. Re:Dart Maybe? by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

      In the gaming universe this is known as an "aim bot", and is routinely derided as a hack for no-skill n00bs.

      It should be popular.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    9. Re:Dart Maybe? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      No, it just steers itself in that direction, the laser is what guides it to where it needs to get to. The 'paint' is what guides it to the target.

    10. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This round is to make snipers out of regular infantrypersons.

    11. Re:Dart Maybe? by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      World record is a mile and a half. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/sniper_kills_qaeda_from_mi_away_sTm0xFUmJNal3HgWlmEgRL

      5 miles? That's pushing the limits of physics just a little too much. It would take a shitload of luck to get a hit from that far away. Farthest I've personally seen done is just over a mile (1800m).

      And as others have pointed out, it takes time and money to train a sniper. It also takes a *lot* of luck at the upper ends of distance. You have to account for ballistic trajectory, air resistance (which changes with the temperature), wind (which can change directions remarkably easily), moving targets, etc.. Even at the speeds a bullet travels at, it still takes a discernable amount of time to reach the target at that distance. Having something you can fire and forget, and let your spotter guide it to its target with a laser pointer is a huge improvement, IMO. And besides, it's not going to cost a million bucks a pop once it's in production. Development may have cost that, but nothing in the device is all that expensive to actually make.

    12. Re:Dart Maybe? by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

      Dart nothing, they said 10 centimeters. That's approaching the crew served field artillery sizes. I come on the abrams ONLY has a 120mm cannon for the primary weapon. You show me a shoulder fired, make that, man portable weapon system that has that kind of range and ability.

      --
      Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
    13. Re:Dart Maybe? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Navy snipers can exceed 5 mile killing shots easily. You're doing it all wrong. We kick ass, and don't bother taking names.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SusumfLtYZM

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    14. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it states 2,475m = 2.475 km = 1.5 miles. I know, we Americans tend to assume everything is measured in miles, but the rest of the world tends to disagree.

    15. Re:Dart Maybe? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Funny

      Length and diameter are entirely different things, as the actress said to the bishop.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    16. Re:Dart Maybe? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Can't snipers already hit a target a mile out, without needing million dollar bullets?

      Usually not done at that distance, but possible.
      In some environments (urban buildings) the wind is so variable that snipers have a hard time "doping" it to allow for cross winds.
      Add to that a walking target, and you can see that just having to fire in something close to the general direction and have your painter keep the target in the cross hairs for the entire flight time would be much easier.

      Target movement and side winds would be less of a factor, and the shooter could hit targets they couldn't even see (theoretically).

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    17. Re:Dart Maybe? by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      They said 10cm long (they actually said 4 inches long). A rough guess based off the video, I would say its a 1cm (.40 caliber) flachette, with a 20mm sabot. The smoothbore Rheinmatall on the M1A1 may be a 120mm gun, but it fires a 24mm APFSDS round, or Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot.

    18. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 mile = 1 609.344 metres

    19. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      has anyone else realize that 10cm is 100mm, so just slightly smaller than a 105mm howitzer shell! That is not a sniper round that is an artillery round! Stick it in a tank's main gun and you will get a lot more than a mile out of it! fire it as a shoulder weapon and you wikk die!!!

    20. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *We kick ass, and fail math!

      i felt i should append this

    21. Re:Dart Maybe? by realityimpaired · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's a 5" Mk.45 gun, not a rifle, and it's not a sniper, it's an artillery shot. ;) That thing has a range well over 5 miles... more like 13nm according to wiki. :) The navy has guns with an operational range >20mi if you're willing to allow a bigger gun like a 12" or a 16"...

      Of course, if you're going to allow the Navy to use big guns as "sniper" weapons, I'm going to allow the Army to use an excalibur round... 200+ mile range on that particular type of artillery. :P

    22. Re:Dart Maybe? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like a dart than a bullet.

      It's called a flechette. We already have firearms that fire them, just not guided.

    23. Re:Dart Maybe? by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Judging by the picture of the guy holding it in his hand (second link), 10 cm refers to the length, not the diameter, of the guided bullet. This is much smaller than a 105mm howitzer shell.

    24. Re:Dart Maybe? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like somebody has been watching cheesy 80s movies. Now all we need is acid spitting robo-spiders.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    25. Re:Dart Maybe? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Why is this marked flamebait? Seriously?

      A bullet does not have any fins, or any other physical designs that are protruding from the bullet to stabilize its flight. It relies on spin to provide stability once fired.

      Before rifling and spinning bullets you had spherical bullets which were still wildly inaccurate, and even spherical bullets must have spin to stabilize.

      The poster is raising a good question. Once you add fins and actuators to the "bullet" does it still qualify as a bullet as we typically think of one? With fins and actuators it starts sounding more like the midpoint between a bullet and a guided missile.

      Now a dart has fins to provide stability in flight and not for guidance, but nonetheless, I found the poster's question insightful. If only I had mod points....

    26. Re:Dart Maybe? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Air Force has got you both beat. Nuke it from orbit.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    27. Re:Dart Maybe? by killfixx · · Score: 1

      Bullets are projectiles that do not provide their own propulsion during flight. Darts do not self correct. This would be more of a glider that punches holes in ppl.

      --
      "Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
    28. Re:Dart Maybe? by gparent · · Score: 1

      I just read the article and it says nothing about 2.475 miles. Where did you read it?

    29. Re:Dart Maybe? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      12" and 16" guns tend to be a bit heavy. If you can get it aboard a destroyer, and fire it, you'll probably tear the ship apart. 8" is about as big as I care to be around.

      But, we are as accurate as any sniper. As long as I was aboard, we NEVER missed a shot. We literally shot missiles out of the air - our own, when they lost a target, and circled around to target us!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    30. Re:Dart Maybe? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I agree that darts are not the best way to describe this. Just pointing out that the comparison was not wildly inaccurate and certainly not deserving of flamebait.

    31. Re:Dart Maybe? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      And, one thing that you did get wrong. That gun is indeed a "rifle". A non-rifled gun, or a smoothbore, might be good in some place, for some purposes. But, for the most part, that rifling is essential to a destroyer's mission. Of course, with "smart" ammunition, the rifling would probably be redundant.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    32. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, thanks to the British I would say more of the world (by land mass) uses miles rather than kilometers.

    33. Re:Dart Maybe? by smi.james.th · · Score: 1

      Either way, it sounds very much like Patsy's Magic Bullet in Worms 2 :)

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    34. Re:Dart Maybe? by wmac1 · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      This uses almost the same technology as Laser guided artillery. Examples are Russian Krasnopol. Even Iran has produced a similar weapon this week.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH0FeGwR1uM

      Iranian version:

      http://www.irandefence.net/showpost.php?p=1022207

    35. Re:Dart Maybe? by chandoni · · Score: 1

      It will probably be at least $5,000 per bullet. You better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway!

    36. Re:Dart Maybe? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Of course, with "smart" ammunition, the rifling would probably be redundant.

      Probably not. As the summary points out, this guidance needs a bit of distance in order to acheive course correction. For short-range, not helpful and rifling is required, and even at long range without rifling the shot may hit something unexpected before the bullet can correct. You aren't just making sure it will hit the right place, you also are making sure it doesn't hit anything before then.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    37. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like a dart than a bullet.

      The real trick is training the sharks to fire the rifles.

      Killing is against the law

    38. Re:Dart Maybe? by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      I was going to say, not much bigger than an M20 bazooka if was 100mm caliber.

      So they made a laser guided rpg.... Big deal.

      Instead it is more like gene Simmons gun in Runaway.

      Gene Simmons, Kirstie alley, Tom Selleck and crazy robots, what is there not to love!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    39. Re:Dart Maybe? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Even more than that, but only under the right conditions. And the bullet takes a few seconds to get to the target - if the shot isn't planned just perfectly the target won't be where the shooter expected him to be.

    40. Re:Dart Maybe? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      1 mile = 1 609.344 metres

      Or 1.32 grogs...

    41. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I just get the sharks to do the laser bit.

    42. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 10-centimeter bullet that can be fired from a smooth-bore rifle to hit a laser-marked target one mile away

      > smooth-bore rifle

      what the fuck am i reading?

    43. Re:Dart Maybe? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The first two? :)

    44. Re:Dart Maybe? by Talderas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The training of a sniper is not just in shooting. The USMC Scout Sniper school has three areas of training. Marksmanship is the one that people most immediately associate with a sniper. Observation is the second area of training. Stalking is the third area. This laser guided bullet won't replace a sniper since all it does is replace the marksmanship factor of a sniper. That of course assumes that the system is no heavier than the equipment a scout-sniper team would already take with them and doesn't significantly increase their profile. Scout-snipers will still operate in 2 man teams behind enemy lines and such operatives are still going to have to be highly trained to accomplish the task and if anything, such a system would not want to be used by scout-snipers precisely because we wouldn't want that system to fall into enemy hands.

      I don't believe this system is useful from a battlefield perspective. This seems more like a system the CIA would be interested in for usage in an urban environment.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    45. Re:Dart Maybe? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Er...? Only the US, UK and a smattering of other small nations (mostly Carribean islands with strong links to the US, one or two African countries and Burma) use miles for measurement (e.g. of road distances). That's far from a majority of the world's landmass.

      Hell you could take just Russia alone and it would be bigger than all the 'miles-using' countries.

    46. Re:Dart Maybe? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Yea that is what I thought.
      An M-16 is a .223 or a 5.56mm round.
      Your typical .30 cal is 7.62mm
      The cannon on the A-10 is 30mm.
      This is 10 cm! that is 100mm!
      The cannon on the the Tiger tank from WWII was only 88mm!
      And guided shells are not even new
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-51_Shillelagh

      BTW Smooth bore rifle? That is a Jumbo Shrimp folks. You can not have a smooth bore rife!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    47. Re:Dart Maybe? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes the Slashdot summary was written by and idiot.
      The line " smooth bore rife" should be more than enough to show that both the editor that approved the summary and the author should not be allowed to post anything on slashdot again.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    48. Re:Dart Maybe? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      WRONGO. The Hellfire missile is laser guided, from a laser on the launching craft or another craft, but it doesn't have its own laser. Too bad you got modded up for spreading disinformation. Hilariously, your "citation" contains nothing which supports your assertion! You may try again, but you're wrong (on the internet.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:Dart Maybe? by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. My fault for not reading the actual story. I'm used to dealing the nomenclature being expressed is the diameter/caliber not length.

      --
      Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
    50. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As usual, the various branches of the military come out to wave their dicks around, all the while failing both math and reading comprehension. Truly an impressive feat of multitasking!

    51. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, one thing that you did get wrong. That gun is indeed a "rifle". A non-rifled gun, or a smoothbore, might be good in some place, for some purposes. But, for the most part, that rifling is essential to a destroyer's mission. Of course, with "smart" ammunition, the rifling would probably be redundant.

      Sabot discarding rounds, which 'smart' ammunition likely would be, rifling is actually a bad thing. All it does is spin the sabot around, and it makes the fins less effective at the beginning... A lot of the big caliber artillery is now smoothbore for that reason.

    52. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedantic much? Yes, rifling is exactly what a 'smooth bore' does NOT have, but I think the expression still gets the point across.

    53. Re:Dart Maybe? by mackai · · Score: 1

      The reference to 10-cm is (probably unintentionally) misleading. I was thrown off at first until I went to the gismag article. The 10-cm is the length of the projectile. In the picture, the bore appears more on the order of .50 cal. This is why so many replies have referred to it as a dart.

    54. Re:Dart Maybe? by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

      Instead it is more like gene Simmons gun in Runaway.

      That's the name of the movie I was trying to remember! Thanks!

    55. Re:Dart Maybe? by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      As measured by dollars spent per kill, snipers are cost effective. In Vietnam the army estimated that the average soldier spent $23,000 in ammunition for every enemy soldier killed. US snipers spent 17 cents per kill. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armytrng/a/sniperschool.htm

    56. Re:Dart Maybe? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Pedantic? I don't think so this is just exactly wrong. Not to mention that you never specify the size of a projectile by length.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    57. Re:Dart Maybe? by similar_name · · Score: 1

      I quoted the parent to my post. I made no assertion myself and my citation was to correct the assertion made by the parent to my post. Try not to be so quick in telling someone they are wrong and spreading misinformation if you're not going to read the thread.

    58. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we still don't give a shit.

    59. Re:Dart Maybe? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're right, I apologize. I did read the thread, but it didn't help. Must have had something in my... eye.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:Dart Maybe? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      this army rifle *never misses* at 3 miles, even with non-snipers operating it!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE

    61. Re:Dart Maybe? by radtea · · Score: 1

      But it costs money (no idea how much) to train that sniper, and if they are injured you've lost their value.

      Neither snipers nor any other killers have any value, at least in the strict economic sense. Economically, killers and the machines they use to kill are called "dead weight loss": potentially valuable resources that are taken out of the productive economy and in the very best case are never used. In the worst case, they kill people and destroy things, sometimes being killed themselves in the process, none of which ever creates any economic value.

      So if by "value" you mean anything to do with economics, you're wrong: the moment you've taken a person out of the productive economy you've lost all their value, and they have become a negative value in most cases.

      Wasting productive resources on more effective ways to kill is a waste. And after the number of people who have been killed in the past hundred years anyone who believes that if we only had better ways to kill we'd have fewer problems has to be in the grip of some profound delusion.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    62. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like it is fricken "laser"-guided than self-guided too.

      Wait let me correct that for you ....

    63. Re:Dart Maybe? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the Dumdums from Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    64. Re:Dart Maybe? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Darts stabilize their flight with fins and bullets stabilize their flight with spin- the fact that these 'guided' darts manipulate the fins to change the trajectory seems secondary to them being darts.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    65. Re:Dart Maybe? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Can't snipers already hit a target a mile out, without needing million dollar bullets?

      You can't put a sniper in a MQ-1 Predator or a MQ-9 Reaper, but you certainly put a weapons pod on one. If the bullets aren't too pricey, I could easily see them being used against a wide range of point targets where a Hellfire missile at $68,000.00 a shot would not only be more expensive but a lot less surgical. Right now the Taliban is pretty good at jumping the arrow when a Hellfire missile is fired at a group of them on foot so we usually only get one person, with these we could hunt down the individuals in the group as they ran.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    66. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of this tech and the best thing they can do is spit the shells all over the deck? Imagine getting one of those suckers down your collar.

    67. Re:Dart Maybe? by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Care to tell me what the difference between a 7.62x39 and 7.62x54 is then?

    68. Re:Dart Maybe? by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      I agree with almost everything in the first paragraph. The enemy would eventually run out of magic bullets, and possibly locking the laser via a security code eliminates the other worries. For snipers this is just one possible tool in their toolbag.

      However, as to limited battlefield use, I think rather the laser painter being able to call in precision munitions smaller than current laser guided munitions would be fantastic. There are lots of 25mm or smaller applications in the armory for close air support, that you just want one D-bag dead and not everyone unfortunate enough to be close to them.

      I expect Drones to be pivotal with this tech to give you some support by loitering in the air until needed. Drones that are remotely controlled could fire the rounds and paint the targets at the same time.

    69. Re:Dart Maybe? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If you are selling organs you may need to kill someone to harvest those organs. Therefore killers can be economically productive. There are probably less extreme examples too.

      Your argument sounds like it has some seriously biased assumptions about value. Instead of "a thing has value if people are willing to pay for it" (and people are certainly willing to pay for others to kill on their behalf) you're doing some kind of moral value. Can you explain what you mean?

    70. Re:Dart Maybe? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It takes a bullet a while to travel a mile. By the time the bullet reaches the target, the target may have moved. With this, after you pull the trigger you keep the laser on the target, and the round will hit the target. This would make a sharpshooter even more accurate.

    71. Re:Dart Maybe? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      In Quake3 it is called the railgun...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    72. Re:Dart Maybe? by [Zappo] · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia article for excalibur rounds says:
      "The weapon can make first round strikes on targets up to 20 kilometres (12 mi) away."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur

    73. Re:Dart Maybe? by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The technology isn't as impressive as it's made out to be. It's not as though you're introducing harsh turns but it's almost certainly going to still be gentle curving at best. That would be of a huge benefit because indirect fire on target is immensely more valuable than direct fire since you aren't exposing your troops to the enemy.

      The article even admits that the bullet's accuracy increases as you get farther away from the target because more course corrections can occur. At 1,000m the accuracy was within 20cm. Unfortunately that's well beyond the 300m that infantry engagement occurs at. That's partially an accuracy issue but also just an evolution of the battlefield itself that has drawn combat away from open areas and into closed areas and narrow regions and having a tool like this is just going to encourage enemies to get into more crowded areas to mess up the line of sight for this technology. That's why I don't see this being a battlefield tool that greatly increase our armed forces efficiency because it requires long ranges in order to be effective. More or less I see it as improving overwatch or blocking sharpshooters more than anything else.

      I can see a number of cool things you can do with a guided bullet at long ranges but I'm afraid a lot of my ideas would require multiple computer controlled lasers that switch on and off to guide a bullet around obstacles to hit a target. Those would probably be out of the realm of possibility for sniper-scout teams.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    74. Re:Dart Maybe? by lupinstel · · Score: 1

      It continues to be the policy of the US military to neither confirm nor deny the existence of our acid spitting robo-spiders.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
    75. Re:Dart Maybe? by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      Do you have a gas cap on your car? Do you put it in? Why? It doesn't create any value. It prevents loss. Using a limited amount of productive resources to acquire or prevent the loss of a greater amount is known as a net gain.

      Snipers, and other killers, can be a net gain. They may not generate value directly, but removing pirates from a shipping lane prevents loss. Eliminating a wolf from the field with your cattle prevents loss (and could generate value if you have a market for wolf body parts).

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
  3. Lasers? Fired from a shark? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

    Of course, the laser (even IR) will give away the spotter's position. This is no sniper weapon. I wonder, then, what applications the technology does have.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Of course, the laser (even IR) will give away the spotter's position. This is no sniper weapon. I wonder, then, what applications the technology does have.

      So don't be all day about it - aim and fire and let the bullet do the rest of the work, that's what it's for.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So don't be all day about it - aim and fire and let the bullet do the rest of the work, that's what it's for.

      The 'other side' already has someone with night-vision goggles scanning for muzzle flashes of sniper weapons. He will easily see the IR laser too. In fact, that laser will give him a short warning that a sniper is about to fire. At 1.5 kilometers range, a second's warning is enough to yell "down" so nobody's torso is in the same place that it was when the trigger was pulled.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Troggie87 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Application? How about an overhead drone carrying a payload thats roughly the same weight as now, except instead of blowing things up it just shoots you in the face. You dont have to carry a huge amount of munitions when 95% of the bullets will hit the target.

      From now on, whenever you see a new military technology you should think about how it works with drones. For example, it probably isnt a coincidence that our new magnetic launch systems on carriers will allow lighter, more fragile aircraft (read, composite drones) to be launched. The official line is it does less damage to tradition aircraft, which it does. But the guys calling the shots on this stuff make war for a living, and the writing is on the wall as far as the future goes. "Lighter. Cheaper. Disposable"

    4. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      Hunting.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      nobody's torso is in the same place that it was when the trigger was pulled.

      As long as the guy with the laser can keep the laser on you, that's not going to help a lot.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by noh8rz2 · · Score: 2

      No, the only way you would see the origination point of the laser is if it were pointed directly at your goggles. Otherwise you can't tell where the laser scope is situated.

    7. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Hentai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is absolutely a sniper weapon. It's just not a sniper weapon to be used against prepared military assets.

      It'd do a fine job of assassinating unprepared civilian targets, though.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    8. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 2

      Can't you put a hood on a laser so that it would only be visible within a vary narrow angular range? You can't really do that with a muzzle flash.

    9. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      As long as the guy with the laser can keep the laser on you, that's not going to help a lot.

      How about an LED decoy thrown to the side?

      You do bring up an interesting point, though. Who is responsible for the kill, the guy pulling the trigger or the guy pressing the button on the laser?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    10. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 1

      Maybe no good in the traditional sniper role but if this weapon ever gets to the point where it has an effective range that's much greater than any small arms fire then it will have a new role all of its own. That role will be called "shoot the Taliban and laugh at the counter fire".

    11. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A) there doesn't need to be a human at the laser's position, it could be pointed by robot.

      B) the laser doesn't need to be continuous. You could PWM it with a small duty cycle and a decreasing aperiodic frequency, at the sacrifice of accuracy.

    12. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by pastyM · · Score: 1

      laser guided that makes adjustments in flight, sounds like if the laser would move to fallow that torso it would still hit.

    13. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by RMingin · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can do exactly that. Most wouldn't bother fully concealing the muzzle flash, but a flash suppressor does the meaningful percentages of that job.

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    14. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      There's no laser with a perfect optics. There will be light spilling off to the sides. Lighting up a laser at night is light standing around smoking a cigarette. It will give away your position.

      I guess what they could do is have the laser only turn on when the trigger is pulled. That way it won't add any visibility that the flame doesn't already give.

    15. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Who is responsible for the kill, the guy pulling the trigger or the guy pressing the button on the laser?

      Does it have to be one or the other? Besides, aren't they likely to be the same person? Or more likely, one person designating a target on a computer - the computer then making sure that the laser stays point at the target, and the bullet making sure that it stays pointed at the laser dot.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Baloroth · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just synchronize the firing of the rifle with the activation of the laser. He sees the flash and the laser at the same time, and that is assuming he is looking at exactly the right spot. Easy enough to do. You could probably do it manually, if necessary, with some practice. The laser doesn't have to be on before the gun is fired, after all, or even immediately after firing: most of the flight is still going to be influenced by ballistics.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    17. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Who is responsible for the kill, the guy pulling the trigger or the guy pressing the button on the laser?

      Does it have to be one or the other? Besides, aren't they likely to be the same person? Or more likely, one person designating a target on a computer - the computer then making sure that the laser stays point at the target, and the bullet making sure that it stays pointed at the laser dot.

      Just have the target wearing a suit covered with bits of mirror and he/she is safe. I see this as a coming fad amond despots...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    18. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by spacepilot · · Score: 2

      Soldier on the ground painting the target. Drone overhead shooting. Done all the time, but with larger weapons. This is a man-killer, not a building killer.

    19. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by noh8rz2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the laser doesn't light until the trigger is pulled, whT is the point of a laser scope? I would do microsecond laser bursts. Good enough for the bullet optics and if you have the right goggles, but invisible to casual observations.

    20. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I just RTFA. The summary say "10 inch bullet", and as bullets are usually measured at the diameter, I assumed this was basically more like a tank shell.

      Turns out it's 10 centimeters, and that's 10cm length, not width. So 4 inches long.

      So you could select your target with a rifle rather than needing to have a computer and automated mechanisms control everything after all - but I still think having the laser automatically track the desired target after you've pulled the trigger is a good idea.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    21. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by NouberNou · · Score: 1

      You realize that would make them a better target right? Laser guidance works on detecting the reflected energy of the laser off the target, the more reflective the surface the better.

    22. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by BDZ · · Score: 1

      Does it even need to be a person?

      Perhaps that part of the job can be done by a small treaded bot or a drone eliminating any personnel needing to get close to the target.

    23. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by NouberNou · · Score: 2

      The lasers are pulsed anyways to prevent jamming or interference with other systems in the field. The round and designator accept a 3/4 digit laser "code" that tells them to modulate in a certain pattern.

      The only really big thing in this story is the miniaturization of the technology we have had laser guided bombs and even laser guided cannon artillery for almost 40 years now.

    24. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The mirror in all likelihood will reflect a vast majority of the light away from the detector, unless is happens to be on a perfect angle. More reflective surfaces are actually worse. A matte surface works better because it tends to reflect light in all directions including towards the detector.

    25. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Trophy killers. Not uncommon to find a prize of a buck on someone's personal ranch groomed for the express purpose of handing over the prize on a silver platter. CxO and other executive types love these feel-good games.

      Real men hunt with a bow and arrow. The elite use spears.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    26. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      That's the theory, but practice is frequently something else entirely. Is there any haze, dust, smoke, humidity -- basically any particulates -- in the air? That will scatter the laser light.

      A guy I knew recently was showing off with a high-powered laser he picked up somewhere. It was pretty awesome -- he was lighting up mountaintops roughly a mile away. However, I was very surprised to see that there was a very clear, very distinct line from his laser to whatever target he was pointing it at. There was no way he could have remained covert while painting a target. Yes, this was a higher-end, visible-light consumer laser as opposed to a military-issue IR laser. While I would expect a military-grade laser to have more coherency than a consumer-grade laser, they both will be affected this way by atmospheric scattering.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    27. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Sure, but as I mentioned above it may not help.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    28. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you're covered in flat mirrors, you only get specular reflection, where the light travels in one singular path. If the seeker head is not directly in that path, it will not be able to see you, and will not track. Laser guidance required diffuse reflection, where the laser light is scattered in all directions, and the seeker head can see it from any location.

    29. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or he'll fire the same type of bullet and let it home in on your IR signal as he is yelling down.

    30. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      No, this is more of an anti-material weapon. It's so much longer than even a normal rifle round that a human body won't to much to stop it. Unless you happen to hit a vital organ, or get a solid hit on a bone, it will just go in one side and right out the other, doing limited damage in between. It's a common problem with flachette-style rounds.

    31. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by meglon · · Score: 1

      If you're not hunting grizzly with a 6 inch knife wearing a loincloth, you're a wimp.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    32. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      With a couple thousand bullets launched simultaneously from (pick your mobile platform) it seems like buildings wouldn't stand
      much of a chance.

    33. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      No vice presidents allowed.

    34. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Of course, the laser (even IR) will give away the spotter's position.

      If they make this thing fly for 3+ km, I don't think it'll matter much if the target can spot the person who guides it. What are they going to do, fire AK/PK/SVD at him?

      For that matter, I very much doubt that your average Taliban fighter carries IR goggles.

    35. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I like the way you think.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    36. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Slashdot: where just because something is technologically possible, it is always being implemented constantly everywhere.

      Although it may be *possible* to do this, not all soldiers, terrorists, drones, and bystanders have a system constantly watching for IR LEDs in a 720 radius at a distance of 5 miles. Now personally speaking, *I* do, but not everyone can afford such luxuries. :-)

    37. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Snipers work in pairs don't they? Sniper and Spotter?

      If the sniper no longer needs a spotter right next to him, or even close to him, then the IR point is not valuable to the "other side".

      This opens up whole new possibilities too. A sniper and spotter are required right now to due the extreme skill and experience required to make long shots. Guidance on the bullets greatly decreases the "barrier to entry" here for a lethal system.

      Imagine a group of drones. Half tasked to keep the lasers on several targets at one time, the other half tasked to repeatedly fire bullets, while all drones are moving targets themselves.

      In such a situation the muzzle flashes will not help you at all, and drones could randomly distribute their targeting lasers while moving so you could only guess where they were in the air.

      Add to this, depleted uranium bullets and other such devastating ordinance, and I don't think wherever you are in the open is going to help you against multiple bullets fired against you. Even ducking into a hardened container is going to be dangerous and I would think only getting deep inside a fortified building might help you.

      "Ducking". Okay.... the bullet is guided. Nothing says that X amount of distance before impact gain altitude and readjust so you come in a steep angle to the target. Multiple bullets means the target has to dodge multiple times from incoming rounds coming in at a steep angle. Think MIRV too. Multiple bullets to create a kill zone surrounding where the target was. How fast can you really move within 3 seconds once somebody yells? Fast enough to get out of the kill zone?

      Keep in mind... not having a sniper on the ground means he does not need to carry all the ordinance. In fact, you could have groups that are just trained to place hardware and camouflage them before activating them remotely onto designated targets from the safety of a remote unknown location.

    38. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by modecx · · Score: 1

      The 5mw+ IR lasers the military likes to use (we US citizens are limited to something like .07mw in the IR spectrum) almost always create a pretty distinct, easy to observe line straight from your rifle all the way to your target, due to humidity, dust, smoke bugs, etc.

      You can see an example in this youtube video, unfortunately, he also had his illuminator on, so most of the laser is blown out, but you can get the idea.

      You'd need an obscenely powerful laser during to even begin using this thing during the day, and unless you used something in the ultraviolet frequencies, it would be pretty easy for all but poorly equipped enemies to defeat at night--but only because they have no need for goggles with ultraviolet warnings--yet.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    39. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I like the way you think.

      Better hurry up and subscribe to his newsletter, he's not going to be around for very long.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    40. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by dbc · · Score: 1

      Why have the drone carry the projectiles at all? The drone can identify targets from the air, and point the laser at them. The projectile can be fired from a protected position away from the action. Just lob one off in the general direction and let the laser do the rest.

      Of course, that kind of kills the humor value in the line from Python's "Holy Grail": "I will fart in your general direction."

    41. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is more about Drones firing off hundreds of these and emitting short pulses of IR to individually guide projectiles to their destinations.

    42. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by tibit · · Score: 1

      It's not theory, it's oversimplification. Theory properly takes into account atmospheric scattering due to suspended particulates ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    43. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "It's so much longer than even a normal rifle round that a human body won't to much to stop it."

      That's the case with all military ammo, it has to be full metal jacketed or you are a war criminal according to the Hague Convention.
      Soft-points or hollow-points are verboten, but if this flechette has its center of gravity shifted to the rear, it will yaw violently after hitting the target, thereby making maximum damage while still adhering to the Hague Convention, like the British Mark 7 .303 ammunition.

    44. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Pedant :)

      But you are correct, and I stand corrected (and I am standing at the moment, just to be clear).

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    45. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by russotto · · Score: 1

      If you're not hunting grizzly with a 6 inch knife wearing a loincloth, you're a wimp.

      Sounds interesting, but how do you get the grizzly to put on the loincloth?

    46. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      The standard 5.56 NATO round has the same behavior, but that only works because the spinning dynamically stabilizes it in flight. I doubt the 30Hz update rate on this round is sufficiently rapid to control an aerodynamically unstable shape.

    47. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      You're making a lot of assumptions here. In real life unless the people on the receiving end are prepared for just this kind of thing and looking in the right direction they won't be able to react before it's too late.

    48. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by meglon · · Score: 2

      Weeeeerrrryyyyy carrrrfuwwwwyyy.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    49. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Cerium · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I've been reading the above posts becoming increasingly disappointed that it was seeming like I was the only person who wasn't thinking this was going to work like a Starcraft ghost painting a target with a friggen red laser pointer.

      If you're going to have a soldier run up with a laser gun, why not just give them a bloody rifle and end it there? No. This targeting system will be on automated drones in the air and on the ground which have systems capable of automagically tracking a moving target with some degree of accuracy.

      Not to mention, this is still in development. What happens when they get the range up to two miles? Five? Ten?

      Yikes.

    50. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      The other big point to note here, if the laser is rigged up on / next to the sniper rifle scope. You could delay turning it on until the projectile has left the barrel. Giving you no more warning than the muzzle flash.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    51. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the simple solution, of using an infrared laser?

    52. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Why have a soldier run up? Because his 25 concealed buddies on the other side of the hill are going to fire their guided-flechettes over said hill and annihilate whatever the laser is pointing at :)

      But yes, I agree - as with any and all laser designations, the ease of designation means it is a task that can be employed by anything controllable (be it animal or machine) that can have a laser pointer taped to it.

    53. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's not the reflection that matters, it's the diffusion. Try this little experiment. Stand in a dark room with a torch. Shine it at a wall. Now shine it at a mirror. Was the spot on the wall, or the spot on the mirror easier to see? The mirror was reflecting more of the light, but it was reflecting most of it along a path that didn't return to you. Try the same experiment with a laser pointer and you'll only see a very faint spot on the mirror, but a much brighter spot on the wall after it's bounced off. Now, if you were a bullet programmed to head towards the brightest spot on the wavelength of the laser, would you go towards the mirror or the bit of the wall where the reflected beam ended?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    54. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And do they even have the manual dexterity required to use the knife?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    55. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There also don't need to be any humans at the shooter's position. The shooter could be a fairly cumbersome robot - basically a tank with a remote control. The spotter could be a UAV. Between the two of them, you've got a pretty impressive antipersonnel weapon, and no one on your team needs to be anywhere near... Although you could put the operator inside the tank and use short-range control to minimise the latency. You can almost certainly kill anyone with an antitank rocket before he gets close enough to take a shot...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    56. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      However, since it takes a very fancy mirror with no dust on it to reflect a laser of any power at any degree you could call "complete" they might be able to spot them anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Actually one of the biggest reasons for the spotter is situational awareness. A Sniper needs to be focused on the target. The Spotter provides information about the target's vicinity, which a remote spotter could do. But the Spotter is also responsible for being aware of the area immediately around the team since the Sniper will be focused on an area hundreds of meters away. You know, benefits of the Buddy System and all that.

    58. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Isn't laser guidance an old technology at this point when used for airstrikes? Are these solved problems, or was GPS-guided ordnance the eventual solution?

    59. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Not all military assets are "prepared" for every eventuality, which is why "old school" ordnance still works too!

      Not every military opponent will have all units fitted with gear which will allow them to spot the beam.

      If they try to do that, they spend a shitload of money they could have used for OTHER equipment.

      Your bias is showing.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    60. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Two words for you: "IR goggles."

      Most CCDs are sensitive to IR light, and nightvision equipment often includes an IR flashlight to provide additional lighting when there is too little ambient light to amplify. Consequently, while an IR laser would protect the location of a sniper from the naked eye, it would provide no protection at all from anyone using nightvision goggles or probably even from most CCD-based surveillance cameras (unless they were heavily filtered to block IR*)

      *Yes, I know most digital cameras include an IR cut filter, but they are still relatively sensitive to IR -- just take a picture of a TV remote while adjusting the volume, if you don't believe me.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    61. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but as mentioned elsewhere the beam does diffuse quite a bit over distance. I cant remember the exact amount but over a few kilometers the beam from a SOFLAM is many centimeters wide.

    62. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Of course, the laser (even IR) will give away the spotter's position. This is no sniper weapon. I wonder, then, what applications the technology does have.

      Drones, the ultimate sniper weapon, Long distance, the next best thing to being there. You can spoil somebodies whole day from half a world away and not have any of the messy collateral damage that a Hellfire's big splash can make.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    63. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, they could send the bullet in the general direction and only turn the laser on just soon enough for the bullet to pick up the target and make whatever fine adjustments are necessary to hit it. You get a fraction of a second's warning, and the sniper would get a minimum of a few seconds to move since it'd take that long for your bullet to reach them anyway.

    64. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My suspicion is that the Taliban hasn't had enough first aid training to make much difference. Beside all military ammo is full metal jacket things like hollow points are a violation of the Geneva conventions so through and through wounds are fairly common. I've seen 7.62 mm military ball ammo go through a 12 inch maple tree at close range.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    65. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      The 7.62x51 NATO round will go straight through a tree, however the 5.56x45 NATO round used in most western assault rifles is aft-weighted and unstable, meaning as soon as it hits something, it tumbles, fragments, and generally causes a mess of things similar to hollow points.

    66. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Who is responsible for the kill, the guy pulling the trigger or the guy pressing the button on the laser?

      Who's responsible for the touchdown, the quarterback or the wide reciever? It's a meaningless question. I once told a combat veteran that I alwasy felt bad because I was behind the lines servicing aircraft while he was getting shot at. He informed me that we support guys kept him and his combat buddies alive, and I should feel proud.

      It's teamwork. Like the cliche says, there's no "I" in team.

    67. Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you need a hood? That's practically part of the definition of a laser-that it is a very narrow angle beam.
      But if I see a laser dot on my chest, and stick my hand out in front of me and figure where to block it, I can determine the approximate direction from which the beam came, without having to see the beam.

  4. Really? by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Personally i don't believe it. A mile away? They probably couldn't hit an elephant at that dist

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Really? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Just remember to keep your head down at all times . . .

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills

      Of course, they weren't aiming at elephants . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that far fetched. Snipers in Afghanistan have made kills with conventional sniper rifles at over 1.5 miles (.338 Lapua, .50 BMG).

      There are enthusiasts in the ELR shooting community who hit targets a mile out quite regularly.

    3. Re:Really? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't normally do this, but woosh

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Really? by squidflakes · · Score: 2

      A mile away is 5280 feet or 1760 yards. Even during WW2, German snipers were killing American soldiers from 1000 yards, and the world record sniper shot during war time is currently two human targets at 2707 yards.

    5. Re:Really? by hawk · · Score: 1

      But who would have thought that *snipers* of all people would have to worry about becoming obsolete due to new technology . . .

      Next: a self-administering poison . . .

      hawk

    6. Re:Really? by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      But who would have thought that *snipers* of all people would have to worry about becoming obsolete due to new technology . . .

      Next: a self-administering poison . . .

      hawk

      I'm thinking along the lines of .. you can make a rifle that fires a 10 inche laser guided bullet. Um. Why not just make a laser rifle?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    7. Re:Really? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Your post whooshing over the head of all of the replies must make you feel a bit like Gen. Sedgwick right now!

    8. Re:Really? by Matheus · · Score: 1

      Saving Private Ryan quote: "Well, what I mean by that, sir, is... if you was to put me and this here sniper rifle anywhere up to and including one mile of Adolf Hitler with a clear line of sight, sir... pack your bags, fellas, war's over. Amen!"

      Movie != Reality but still... at least Spielberg thought it was pretty reasonable.

    9. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish more people would do this!

      Also, I hope I live to achieve something that doesn't end in a wiki page like this (not having a wiki page perhaps?).

    10. Re:Really? by meglon · · Score: 1

      A cohesive beam that would do damage would have an incredible power requirement over any real distance.

      A laser pointer we can make the size of a pen; throw in a few electronics for range finding and a sat upload.. and you could do it in something the size of a beer can (or smaller). Obviously the military's are probably bigger (still), given that private industry likes to make things that are mostly crap for the government before raping them for costs.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    11. Re:Really? by Splodgey · · Score: 1

      So in the future we may see a last-words quote like 'Shit he's wearing mirrored sungla.....'

      --
      Sigs are for losers....oh wait...damnit
    12. Re:Really? by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 0

      Thanks. From now on I'm googling the full text of every post I reply to, just in case it happens to reference some obscure civil war quote.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    13. Re:Really? by ultramk · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if you can hear the "whoosh" that means they missed. ;-)

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    14. Re:Really? by Z8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks. From now on I'm googling the full text of every post I reply to, just in case it happens to reference some obscure civil war quote.

      No way, it's totally ridiculous to try to understand someone's post before you publicly call them a moron.

    15. Re:Really? by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      It went right by my head. The palm has been properly applied to the face.

    16. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because every everybody knows that Laser Rifles are not worth the trouble researching, better invest in Heavy Cannons and focus research into Alien Artifacts - even measly Plasma Pistol is much more powerful than Laser Rifle..

    17. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle August 2008 1,920 m (2,100 yd) .338 Lapua Magnum

      Pretty impressive that he did it without gun.

    18. Re:Really? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Making a laser rifle is easy. We've been able to make them for decades. The difficult bit is making a portable power station...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laser energy diffuses rapidly with distance. And at high energies, loses power ionizing the air. And a simple 9mm bullet carries ~500 J muzzle energy. The equivalent laser, a pulsed 500W laser, held on target for 1s, is presently the size of a house. And that's without the multiple detroit deisels attached to generators you'd need to power it.

    20. Re:Really? by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely, he thought that it would be reasonable that soldiers were full of bravado and boasting talk.

  5. Great by omganton · · Score: 0

    A fancy new way to kill people. Great. Maybe we should invest some of the R&D money spent on this pointless project and fund medical research or a space program that isn't humiliating.

    1. Re:Great by ackthpt · · Score: 0

      A fancy new way to kill people. Great. Maybe we should invest some of the R&D money spent on this pointless project and fund medical research or a space program that isn't humiliating.

      Really neat development .. in the country which has had 4 presidential assassinations and a few unsuccessful attempts.

      Pass a new law: It is illegal to shoot the President with this bullet, this action may result in fine, imprisonment or both.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Great by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about people? That troublesome bear invading your neighborhood is also a likely target, especially if the animal control officer knows he won't have ANY collateral damage because every bullet hits every time.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  6. Sweet! by bondsbw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since soldiers will be using this, I can enable auto-aim without being called a noob.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  7. Laser DoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens if the enemy wises up and starts aiming lasers at you?

    1. Re:Laser DoS by jamesh · · Score: 1

      I doubt the bullet can do more than steer a few degrees... it certainly couldn't look behind itself.

      But I assume all the enemy would need is a bunch of very bright LED's on a board around the intended target and the projectile would get confused...

    2. Re:Laser DoS by Barny · · Score: 2

      Ahh, that is why we have the laser guided grenade round too, for the wise arse who lights up all around his intended target with lasers...

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  8. Runaway - the movie by DigiShaman · · Score: 3

    Where's the Tom Selleck slashdot icon when you need it

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Runaway - the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was so thinking of exactly whis when i read the title

    2. Re:Runaway - the movie by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Where's the Tom Selleck slashdot icon when you need it

      Thinking of Quigley Down Under, myself. See guy running away. Prop rifle on a rock. Fiddle with site. Look through it at guy still running away. Pull trigger. Guy still running .. still running .. then falls down.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Runaway - the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must have Runaway.

    4. Re:Runaway - the movie by drfreak · · Score: 1

      First reference I thought of too. If reality keeps catching up with sic-fi at this rate, the robots should start attacking any day now...

    5. Re:Runaway - the movie by spacecomputer · · Score: 1

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCZY9Z6WvSY Look at the gun that Gene Simmon's character fires 1:29. The bullets were programmed to home into a person's heat signature. The ubiquitous networks and surveillance depicted in the movie are fully realized. Now the bullet will be also.

      --

      Remember, Amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic

    6. Re:Runaway - the movie by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You too, eh? Never thought that grocery store VHS rental would ever be relevant again!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. Congratulations by tmosley · · Score: 1

    Congratulations. You've invented the laser guided missile launcher.

    1. Re:Congratulations by chromas · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was thinking Bullet Bill.

    2. Re:Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You've figured out how to increase the cost of sniping the next mooj by an order of magnitude.

    3. Re:Congratulations by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Congratulations. You've invented the laser guided missile launcher.

      *facepalm*

      Nano-missile, thank you.

      This is Slashdot, after all.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Congratulations by tmosley · · Score: 1

      10 cm is hardly nano. More regular than anything. You could call it a "centi-missile" if you must, but that particular buzzword probably lost its buzz factor in the 1300's.

    5. Re:Congratulations by cmburns69 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations. You've invented the laser guided missile launcher.

      Technically, it's a ballistic missile since it doesn't carry it's own fuel. A laser guided ballistic missile launcher. Sounds cool!

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
  10. 10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by terraStorm24 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If everything went metric we wouldn't have these problems. The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

    1. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by goldaryn · · Score: 4, Funny

      The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

      That's what she said..

    2. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by dotancohen · · Score: 5, Funny

      If everything went metric we wouldn't have these problems.

      The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

      Maybe a NASA engineer submitted the fine article?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

      That's what she said.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Aerosmith would not sound the same singing "Big Ten Centimeter".

    5. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      If everything went metric we wouldn't have these problems.

      The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

      Well, that explains why we kept missing Mars when shooting at it...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh wow, im actually impressed now haha. I originally thought it was almost like a self guided canon shell...which isnt terribly impressive. When actually its more along the lines of an extended 7.62 mm shell.

    7. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      No, that's what goldaryn said ;)

    8. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      Umm... everyone else did go metric. Your leaders must be waiting for a sign from The Lord before jumping on the bandwagon. [ducks]

    9. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I saw that after I posted! In my defense, he posted after I loaded the page so I couldn't see it!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    10. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Dirty minds think alike...

    11. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're never going to go metric and we're never going to drive on the left side of the road. That's just how it is and will always be.

    12. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      s/10in/10cm/

      That's what she sed.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    13. Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would require the NASA engineer taking a break from his coffee break, putting the newspaper down or stop playing with his blocks.

      Might be smarter to just walk up to a sleeping lion & punch it in the face.

  11. Umm, 4 inches by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    At least the article says that the dart is 4 inches or 10 centimeters, not 10 inches. (IE it's a little smaller than the 120mm canon the M1 uses.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:Umm, 4 inches by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      They're talking 4-inch length, not caliber. Look at the picture - the caliber appears to be in the .30 range.

    2. Re:Umm, 4 inches by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Good god no. It's 4 inches *long*, not wide. Caliber = diameter. From the picture it looks no more than .45 caliber (11.5mm).

      If you are going to fire a 100mm shell at someone you don't need quite that pinpoint accuracy ;)

    3. Re:Umm, 4 inches by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't scroll down enough to notice that. Then again everything bullet related I've ever seen gives the size as caliber but this is the first time I've ever heard a bullet rated by length. (Hmm, rated by length. There's a dick joke that practically writes itself right there.)

      --
      Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    4. Re:Umm, 4 inches by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      That is 10cm *long*, not in diameter. The 120mm cannon is 120mm in diameter. A 10cm diameter bullet couldn't really be called a "bullet", and self guiding would be pretty easy, we already make missiles that size.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Umm, 4 inches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good catch! (I blame the Sandia press writer, obviously NOT a firearms/ballistics expert! Who writes about the LENGTH of bullets and projectiles—especially when also writing about "smooth-bore" versus "rifled" barrelss?)

      10-cm "bullets" would be the size of an ARTILLERY shell -- like the 155-mm (or 15.5-cm) M172 Copperhead, which is ALREADY "laser-guided.")

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead

      (And someone mentioned the "Excalibur" munition... That's GPS-guided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM982_Excalibur)

      So, a laser-guided "bullet" (which looks to be no larger that a .50-cal, or 12-mm in DIAMETER) is pretty damn impressive!!! Check it out, if you haven't already done so:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandialabs/6800891325/sizes/l/in/photostream/
      https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/bullet/

    6. Re:Umm, 4 inches by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Well in this case, 4 inches long is important to the flight characteristics of the bullet.

      Also while it means you could shoot it out of a .50 caliber weapon, you could not fire one out of a pump action or semi-automatic shotgun, only breach loaders as the round would be longer than even a 3.5 inch magnum shell.

      You could even fire one of these out of a musket if you wanted, a laser designator equipped smoothbore musket.

  12. Farther by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Informative

    accuracy improves with targets that are further away,

    Farther. Actual distance is farther. Metaphorical distance is further, like furthering one's goals. Thanks, I feel better now.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Farther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I am your farther.

      Come with me to the dark side and we can end this destructive conflict.

    2. Re:Farther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      accuracy improves with targets that are further away,

      Farther. Actual distance is farther. Metaphorical distance is further, like furthering one's goals. Thanks, I feel better now.

      Wrong....

      further: comparative of further
      Adverb:
      At, to, or by a greater distance (used to indicate the extent to which one thing or person is or becomes distant from another).

      Adjective:
      More distant in space than another item of the same kind: "two men were standing at the further end of the clearing".

    3. Re:Farther by neonsignal · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let me quote from Fowler (1926):

      The fact is surely that hardly anyone uses the two words for different occasions; most people prefer one or the other for all purposes, and the preference of the majority is for further.

    4. Re:Farther by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:Farther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps not quite:

      Usage note
      Although some usage guides insist that only farther should be used for physical distance ( We walked farther than we planned ), farther and further have been used interchangeably throughout much of their histories. However, only further is used in the adverbial sense “moreover” ( Further, you hurt my feelings ) and in the adjectival senses “more extended” ( no further comment ) and “additional” ( Further bulletins came in ).

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/farther

    6. Re:Farther by aphazel · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I think you're a victim of schoolhouse prescriptive grammar. We have known for a long time that the distinction between farther and further is artificial.

        For example: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=farther

      Do a little research before you go all grammar nazi.

    7. Re:Farther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks I came here to do the same but now I don't have to. Grammar matters.

  13. High Tech by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 5, Funny

    At last, our technology is starting to catch up to 1940s cartoons! I can't wait for my portable hole...

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:High Tech by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      At last, our technology is starting to catch up to 1940s cartoons! I can't wait for my portable hole...

      Yeah .. but just watch out for the Rabbit in drag.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:High Tech by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      As long as there's a KABOOM it's ok. But there's got to be an earth shattering KABOOM!

    3. Re:High Tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to contact Aperture Science for your gun.

  14. Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    smooth-bore rifle

    "Smooth-bore" and "rifle" are mutually-exclusive terms. Pick one.

    1. Re:Terminology by Nidi62 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      smooth-bore rifle

      "Smooth-bore" and "rifle" are mutually-exclusive terms. Pick one.

      Except in common usage, "rifle" has come to mean any type of long gun, whether or not the barrel has rifling. In any case, what other, easy to use term would you use for a modern long gun. Musket wouldn't apply, and those are the only other shoulder arms that use smooth bores. You are just being overly pedantic.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common usage is stupid, and GP is not pedantic.

      A smoothbore firearm, by virtue of its lack of rifling, cannot be referred to as a rifle, period.

      This is no more pedantic than pointing out that, no, your monitor is not a computer or that your motorcycle is not a car.

    3. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in common usage, "rifle" has come to mean any type of long gun, whether or not the barrel has rifling. In any case, what other, easy to use term would you use for a modern long gun. Musket wouldn't apply, and those are the only other shoulder arms that use smooth bores. You are just being overly pedantic.

      Common usage by people who use know what they are talking about?
      Me thinks you are the one being overly pedantic.

    4. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in common usage, "rifle" has come to mean any type of long gun, whether or not the barrel has rifling. In any case, what other, easy to use term would you use for a modern long gun. Musket wouldn't apply, and those are the only other shoulder arms that use smooth bores. You are just being overly pedantic.

      1. No, it hasn't.
      2. No, they aren't. Shotguns are mostly smoothbore, and by mostly I mean well over 99%.
      3. As already pointed out, it isn't pedantic.

    5. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amen. Words have meaning.

    6. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?

      Answer: 4. You can call the tail whatever you want the dog still has 4 legs.

    7. Re:Terminology by Tarsir · · Score: 1

      In any case, what other, easy to use term would you use for a modern long gun.

      Does 'long gun' not serve?

    8. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      long arm.

    9. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just used it, shoulder arm. Everyone knows a side arm is a pistol, as they are used interchangeably with frequency. It doesn't take that much mind bending to determine the meaning of shoulder arm.

    10. Re:Terminology by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Carbine, perhaps. Carbine does not imply rifling, but it does imply something in the short size among long guns, but longer than a handgun.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... "gun"? ... Rifles have rifling and are a specific category of gun. No rifling.. its just a gun.

      I would also say that if muskets are the only other shouldered arms that use smooth bores you know of.. that you're not terribly knowledgeable in this area. One word for you: "Shotgun"

      I didn't think this was that difficult. Most shoulder fired firearms that fire single projectiles are rifles these days. Although there are shotguns that fire rifled slugs. And there are actually rifled barrels for shotguns (and those barrels are pretty useless for buck/birdshot).

      But in general, the first bit is all you need to know.

    12. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Long gun" sounds good. ***Pedanticality!*** ;)

    13. Re:Terminology by mjwx · · Score: 1

      In any case, what other, easy to use term would you use for a modern long gun.

      Does 'long gun' not serve?

      Wouldn't "gun" suffice.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by common, you mean ignorant, than you are correct. By your definition there would be no difference between a rifle and a shotgun, both of which are long guns.

      Of course a rifle and a shotgun shoot very different ammunition, which requires very different metal tolerances (a rifle is at ~50 kpsi, while a shotgun is at ~10 kpsi).

      Do not mistake one for the other, or people (like our friend) will call you ignorant. And they will be right. Hopefully you have learned something today, and this ignorance of yours has been dispersed.

    15. Re:Terminology by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You just used it, shoulder arm. Everyone knows a side arm is a pistol, as they are used interchangeably with frequency. It doesn't take that much mind bending to determine the meaning of shoulder arm.

      Long guns are called long guns. See how that works?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is there something wrong with "long gun"?

    17. Re:Terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's more like the pedant who pipes up "Macs are PCs too" when everyone else is referring to Windows-based PCs. Yes, thank you for sharing that wisdom with us. Now shut up.

  15. Inches? by echo_kmem · · Score: 1

    10 *inch* Bullet that's Guided using Laser and has Fins? I think those are also known as Missles!

    1. Re:Inches? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Or naval rounds.

      (is it jsut me or do the old battleships with rows of massive triple gun turrets simply look cooler than modern ones?)

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Inches? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      They do look cooler, but this is 10 cm, not inches... and in length, not diameter. The round basically looks like a large rifle round (in its cartridge).

      --
      +1 Disagree
    3. Re:Inches? by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Not as cool as a Wave Motion Gun.

    4. Re:Inches? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      If you want to use the literal meaning of "missile", it would include all bullets, rockets, arrows, javelin, and any other form of projectile weapon. If you want to use the literal meaning of "missile", it must be guided and powered .

    5. Re:Inches? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Missiles are self-propelled.

    6. Re:Inches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, 'Guided' and 'Powered', are not the literal meaning nor are what is required for an object to be considered as a 'Missile'. A Missile is any object which is propelled by force, be it by hand, mechanism, or fuel, with intent towards a 'target'. A Rock could be considered a Missile, so could a Pencil, even a rubber band, so long as your goal is to hit some form of target.

    7. Re:Inches? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Yes, the second definition was supposed to be the military meaning, not the literal one.

    8. Re:Inches? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      What modern Battleships? The US and most Navies hasn't produced a battleship since WWII. They were done in by Aircraft Carriers.
      The closest we have to a Battleship now is a Guided Missile Cruiser, which is probably what you are referring to as a "modern Battleship".
      And yes -- the forward mounted machine gun on a Ticonderoga Class has nothing on the massive artillery batteries they had mounted on battleships.
      But then again, who uses artillery batteries anymore? They are little more than very expensive guided missile targets and don't have nearly the range.

  16. If this was a 10 INCH bullet! by terraStorm24 · · Score: 2

    .50cal snipers have some serious kick and that's about a 4 inch bullet. This is at the high end of what a personal weapon can fire. Increase its size by 2.5x and you no longer have a rifle you have an anti aircraft bullet. At the rate obesity is going the next generation might just be able to handle the recoil from a 10in anti aircraft shell........

    1. Re:If this was a 10 INCH bullet! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      .50cal snipers have some serious kick and that's about a 4 inch bullet. This is at the high end of what a personal weapon can fire.

      .50 BMG (12.7x99mm) is by no means the highest end. Russian WW2 anti-tank rifles fired a 14.5x114mm round. There are some modern AT rifles that go all the way up to 20mm, such as Denel.

    2. Re:If this was a 10 INCH bullet! by tsotha · · Score: 1

      But it's not. It's a four inch bullet. Besides, the weight is what matters when you're worried about kick.

      Also, if it's guided you don't have to worry as much about harmonics and whatnot in the gun itself. You could put in some hydraulics for recoil suppression. Or you could make it recoiless.

  17. Here's my deleted (censored?) submission by wisebabo · · Score: 1, Informative

    My story title was: The Future of War... and Assassination!

    (I think it was the word Assassination that got the slashdot editors to remove it from the "recent" listings. It was on the "recent" listings one second at "yellow" and then *poof* gone! Do they think various government agaencies don't approve of such topics?). Anyway, here's what I wrote:

    "From TFA: "This self-guided bullet can chase you down from over a mile away"

    A long LONG time ago, I remember reading something that claimed that in every successive war (WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War) the amount of bullets it took to kill someone was INCREASING, that is (maybe) an average of 100 rounds was spent per soldier killed in WWI whereas by Vietnam it was maybe 10,000 possibly due to smarter tactics and better protection. The commentator said the only way this would change is if they somehow managed to put a VAX (kiddies, that's an old computer) into a bullet.

    Well, it looks like that's been done now, here's a bullet that has computer, sensors and fins that is fired out of a rifle. It requires a laser designated target and it doesn't guarantee pinpoint accuracy but an 8" miss instead of 30ft. at half a mile is a HUGE improvement. Fire a few rounds in quick succession and chances are a body sized target will be hit.

    Of course it will be much more expensive than "dumb" ammunition but I'd guess it'd still be a lot cheaper than the aforementioned 10,000 rounds. What's more it's falling into the Pentagon's plans for a military focused upon small "hit" teams, drones and special ops. For this strategy, this kind of weapon is invaluable. For example; instead of a huge $100 million Global Hawk drone carrying big (heavy) hellfire missiles designed to wipe out a vehicle or house; just use a small (hand launched?) drone carrying a gun with a few rounds of this ammo. (I would imagine such a drone would be a lot quieter so it could get within the shorter range easily). Much cheaper, equally capable of carrying out its mission (killing a few insurgents).

    Unfortunately another use would be to have a forward "spotter" at a public event with an infra-red laser pointer/binocular. The shooter could be quite distant and just has to shoot the bullets (in quick succession mind you) on a ballistic trajectory that will get them near the target. They will home into the (invisible to the naked eye) illuminated target by themselves.

    You'll see security agencies beginning to see this as a threat when they start carrying sensors capable of detecting infrared lasers. The next step though is when enough computing power is available to put face recognition algorithms into the bullet...

    *What really intrigues me isn't the computer power in the bullet but rather how do the fins work! How do they get such tiny (and rugged) motors into a bullet?

    **So is this the kind of invention that Larry Niven was thinking about when he invented the U.N. ARM? It was an agency who's goal was to stop technological innovation that would lead to anarchy (like things that would make murder legal)."

    1. Re:Here's my deleted (censored?) submission by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The perfect way to do war, would be to just assassinate each others leaders over and over again until at some point one side get's one, that thinks getting assassinated is not really worth whatever they started that war over. Then that side loses and the war is done.
      Casualties should be about 5-10 politicians.

    2. Re:Here's my deleted (censored?) submission by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      The commentator said the only way this would change is if they somehow managed to put a VAX (kiddies, that's an old computer) into a bullet.

      Well, it looks like that's been done now, here's a bullet that has computer, sensors and fins that is fired out of a rifle.

      It rather saddens me that we're creating thinking machines -- and then sending them along to their deaths, which also includes deaths of other thinking machines (humans), generally not all of whom are active targets.

      What's more it's falling into the Pentagon's plans for a military focused upon small "hit" teams, drones and special ops.

      Additional sadness from the Pentagon's plan for small "hit" teams as it sounds like they do not plan to be fighting many more wars -- instead, they plan many more murders of sovereign citizens in countries we are not at war with. It's a sad day to remember the Constitution, which expressly forbids these types of government actions... (Besides, why don't these other countries we're not at war with consider our military actions within their borders to be justification to go to war with us? Haven't any of them read "The Mouse That Roared"?)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:Here's my deleted (censored?) submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here's my butt-hurt

    4. Re:Here's my deleted (censored?) submission by tftp · · Score: 1

      in every successive war (WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War) the amount of bullets it took to kill someone was INCREASING, that is (maybe) an average of 100 rounds was spent per soldier killed in WWI whereas by Vietnam it was maybe 10,000 possibly due to smarter tactics and better protection.

      In part it's because these days bullets can be fired not to kill but to make sure the other side can't do anything.

      In part it's also because, as you say, modern tactics and protective equipment make it hard to shoot and kill any specific enemy soldier. A sniper can do that, but snipers shoot at slow moving targets and they have all the time in the universe to make their shot - or not make it if conditions are unfavorable. A soldier at the front line has no such luxury, and so he can't and shouldn't aim. First, it will take him forever to find a moment when the enemy soldier is in motion and visible. Second, it will take him forever to hit the enemy soldier in those brief moments. While the defender is doing all that, selectively hunting that one soldier (and failing,) 99 other enemy soldiers can calmly walk up to his position and kill him. Because of that grunt's rifles are designed to be automatic, not too powerful, and not too accurate; and the goal of the soldier is simply to spray and pray.

      This is also reflected in gradual migration to smaller calibers. Smaller ammo can be carried in large quantities, but even a .22LR round, if it hits the enemy, may take that enemy out of action. Science fiction is full of descriptions of future ammo which is presented as tiny steel or ceramic needles that are accelerated to great speeds with either a propellant (caseless) or with electromagnetic forces.

    5. Re:Here's my deleted (censored?) submission by dargaud · · Score: 1

      You'll see security agencies beginning to see this as a threat when they start carrying sensors capable of detecting infrared lasers.

      No, the easy way to defeat those 'intelligent' bullets is to have a bunch of 5$ IR laser pointers pointing at random objects in the garden.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    6. Re:Here's my deleted (censored?) submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would be a pity. I was hoping we could get to the 500 or so politicians range ... My country for one would benefit from it ...

    7. Re:Here's my deleted (censored?) submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Only 5 politicians as casualties? Couldn't we prolong the war somehow?

  18. not a rifle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It it's smooth-bore, it's a musket, not a rifle...

    1. Re:not a rifle... by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      It it's smooth-bore, it's a musket, not a rifle...

      Don't worry, the next version will have a flash pan.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:not a rifle... by johnny+cashed · · Score: 1

      Not if it is breech loading. Then it is a smooth bore long gun.

    3. Re:not a rifle... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I know some tanks guns are breech loading smoothborse because certain kinds of shells are less effective when spinning, but are there any small-arms that use the principle?

      I thought breech loading originally came about because muzzle loading a rifle is bloody awkward.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. 10 inch bullet that can hit the spot from a mile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know a whole gender waiting to sign up to that one.

  20. Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Further" should be "Farther" dummies.

    1. Re:Typo by jpwilliams · · Score: 1

      Archaic rule. Most writers use them interchangeably.

  21. Smooth bore rifle? by sconeu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't that an oxymoron?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Smooth bore rifle? by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes it is.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    2. Re:Smooth bore rifle? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Turns out Slashdot editor is an oxymoron too.

    3. Re:Smooth bore rifle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's correct, just shouldn't have a space:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothbore

    4. Re:Smooth bore rifle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not correct, dumbass, because if it doesn't have RIFLING, it's not a RIFLE.

    5. Re:Smooth bore rifle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Yes it is.

      Aren't you too young to post on slashdot?

  22. Smaller version of existing tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once upon a time known as a " RAP " round. ( Rocket Assisted Projectile )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Range_Guided_Munition

    1. Re:Smaller version of existing tech by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A fairly major difference is that this new thing is not self-propelling, it's more like a guided bomb.

  23. I just saw that episode by Jethro · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've been watching season 4 of Chuck and just saw this episode. We have nothing to worry about, the CIA will have no problem recovering the bullets. Also the female CIA agent will develop a severe clothing allergy half-way through.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  24. Makes sense too by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

    Rifling increases accuracy for a 'dumb' bullet. However, this bullet is receiving updates and making adjustments in flight, so rifling wouldn't make sense here. Doesn't matter. Until a box of cartridges sells for less than $30, it means nothing to me anyway.

  25. same as LGB by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1
    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  26. Video of the bullet in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  27. Mother of god... by lazycam · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing every enlisted sniper will be begging his commander for one of these. Especially this guy.

    Very scary.

    --
    my mom posts on slashdot.
    1. Re:Mother of god... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Or this one.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  28. Full circle by dissy · · Score: 1

    Nice tech! I think I saw the same movie these guys did, Runaway with wall climbing robotic killer spiders, and self guiding bullets from handguns, and Tom Selleck!

    Damn I hate wall climbing robotic killer spiders... Those must be next :/

    Well as long as they don't make a self guiding robotic Tom Selleck, I think we will be OK.

  29. Easy solution by taniwha · · Score: 1

    IR chaff - IR LED throwies are cheap compared to these bullets and will be brighter than any IR laser (that you can't actually feel as 'hot')

    1. Re:Easy solution by Barny · · Score: 1

      Easy to work around, have a specific frequency for your laser, have bullet only respond to that frequency. Next step, add in a public key to the laser, have it pulse the code on the target, private key in the bullet will only respond to that laser.

      Get a little more CPU power into these things and damn near anything is possible.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but *wearing* a target is bad. Especially when the guy at the other end of the drone goes 'look at all those LEDs! Bombs away!'

    3. Re:Easy solution by tsotha · · Score: 1

      That's pretty easy to counter. The laser doesn't have to have a 100% duty cycle, so what you do is send a code down the beam. The bullet is looking for the same code and ignores everything else. You could even get fancy and use more than one frequency, though I doubt that would be necessary.

  30. ZF-1 by JVolkman · · Score: 1

    Made me think of the gun in Fifth Element. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxjnl1yuXk

  31. Go go gadget circuitry! by mikebald · · Score: 1

    I think it's amazing that they had circuitry that could survive the forces exhibited on it by the sudden acceleration of a gunshot. Am I wrong in thinking that this is one of the first successful applications?

    1. Re:Go go gadget circuitry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While in the Army Corp of Eng we designed a "data acquisition" system--to test it we put it in a special 155mm howitzer shell and fired it into concrete slabs (one hardened, one not) at a distance of about 15 feet from the muzzle. The hardened slab stopped the prototype, but we had to go search the other one down range. The electronics survived; but we found out that tantalum capacitors are piezoelectric. Had to remove the potting by hand, replace all the caps with (I believe) ceramics for the next test. This was on a surface-mount board, and getting the the copper cleaned up enough to de-solder/resolder was a pain. The next test (piggy-backing off a simulated bunker explosion that was just a little too-powerful (blew the bunker side out, instead of being contained in the bunker) went fine. This was back in the late 1980s.

    2. Re:Go go gadget circuitry! by cusco · · Score: 1

      They have nuclear weapons that survive being launched from a howitzer. In fact in the 1950s they produced so many of them that the Pentagon lost count. Think about the state of electronics in the 1950s compared with today, and you might not be so amazed any more.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:Go go gadget circuitry! by tsotha · · Score: 1

      They've had working guided mortar rounds since 2006 and guided artillery since 2010 or so. The acceleration problems have been mostly solved. What's impressive to me is the fact that they packet it into a bullet form factor.

  32. 8 Bit Bullets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait for the upgrade!

  33. I've seen this before.. by sisko · · Score: 1

    What, no mentions of 'Wanted' yet? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493464/

  34. Great ... by blackfireuponus · · Score: 1

    another amazing weapon that will be used against us in 20-50 years.

  35. Does it come with a little red button? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But i would first ask about what it does :o)

  36. Not even really a bullet at all by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    If you look at the final video in the article, this thing isn't even really a bullet. All it is is a scaled-down KE sabot round of the type fired by tanks as an anti-tank round. This is especially true when you consider it is fired from a smooth-bore, as pretty much all modern tanks use smooth-bore cannon as well. It's almost as if they took the 2 main weapons of the modern Western MBT (sabot round and a Hellfire missile), combined them, and shrunk it down for use against personnel. I think it would be interesting to see what type of rifles they would use to fire this round. Would the design and specifications of this round require the development of a new weapon system, or can existing sniper rifles be modified by changing out the barrels from rifled to smooth-bore?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Not even really a bullet at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or even add a long under-slung barrel in parallel with the normal one, sort of like a slimmer and longer M203.

      I mean, you probably shouldn't need/want to fire too many of these in quick succession anyway, right?

    2. Re:Not even really a bullet at all by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      For that matter APFSDS rounds can be fired out of rifled barrels, they just penetrate less that way - which is not as much of a concern for an anti-personnel weapon as it is for an anti-tank one. So perhaps this could be fired from a regular barrel as well.

    3. Re:Not even really a bullet at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expect guided ammo to spread to all weapons eventually. It's gonna change the way we fight wars.

    4. Re:Not even really a bullet at all by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I think it would be interesting to see what type of rifles they would use to fire this round.

      I suspect it will actually end up being either a mortar round, or launched like a rifle grenade (to avoid recoil issues).

    5. Re:Not even really a bullet at all by tiegs · · Score: 1

      I think it would be interesting to see what type of rifles they would use to fire this round.

      Technically they would not be "rifles" because the bullets require smooth-bore barrels. It might be time to resurrect the term "musket" for the weapons that fire these rounds.

  37. Error by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    It would probably be better if they had the whole thing in proper measurements. Showing technology in hogsheads and furlongs etc seems to mislead some people into thinking that "imperial" measures are a valid idea.

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  38. misnomer... by msauve · · Score: 1

    Obviously, it's the control logic and fins which are guiding the bullet.. Presumably, the sensor isn't selective to phase coherence, and one could just as readily have an emitter of some other sort attached to the target, no laser involved. I would expect the target spot to be modulated in some manner, to help avoid false positives.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:misnomer... by icebike · · Score: 1

      No, you can't have "No Lasers" involved.

      Its an optical device, sensor in the nose, it needs to see reflected laser light.

      Its pretty hard to sneak up on someone and plant an emitter "of some sort" on them, and convince them to stand still for 30 seconds.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:misnomer... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Re Its pretty hard to sneak up on someone and plant an emitter "of some sort" on them
      http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/spy-chips-guiding-cia-drone-strikes-locals-say/
      The going price was $122 :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:misnomer... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but not accurate enough. This is a bullet we are talking about, not a missile.
      Try getting an enemy combatant to hold one of your transmitters. Maybe tell him its an iPod.
      Chances are pretty good you find yourself strapped to a tree with it taped to your chest.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:misnomer... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Obviously, it's the control logic and fins which are guiding the bullet..

      And where to? To wherever the laser paints. The object of the exercise is to get the bullet to hit the target, and since the bullet is guided by the laser (hence laser-guided) it will go wherever the laser goes, which is why you put the laser on the target.

    5. Re:misnomer... by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Guiding" is a verb, which implies action. You could set up a fixed laser pointing to a spot, and it's the bullet which is taking action to hit that spot. Your claim is like saying that when going to the grocery store, the store is driving the car.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:misnomer... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      "Guiding" is a verb, which implies action. You could set up a fixed laser pointing to a spot, and it's the bullet which is taking action to hit that spot.

      Take away the laser and what happens? The bullet is lost, it needs guidance, which it gets from the laser. What happens when you need to drive to an unknown destination? You need a guidance system (person, map, sat-nav, etc...).

      Your claim is like saying that when going to the grocery store, the store is driving the car.

      Wrong, I'm not claiming this is a target-guided bullet, I'm saying it's laser-guided bullet. What gets you and the car to the grocery store? Perhaps you are self-guided - based on your existing knowledge or perhaps you are guided by a friend, a sat-nav system or a map.

    7. Re:misnomer... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Its pretty hard to sneak up on someone and plant an emitter "of some sort" on them, and convince them to stand still for 30 seconds.

      That's why super hot spy girls get trained to plant emitters on targets, or in some cases, in targets.

      I imagine for targets in the Middle East we might be able to train camels, or whatever the equivalent for a hot chick is over there. Apparently they stone them on sight or something.

    8. Re:misnomer... by tibit · · Score: 1

      What the parent meant was that you don't need a laser, it could be an arc lamp with some electrooptical modulator in front of it. The receiver does not take advantage of the coherency of the light, although the transmitter (target painter) does, in a fashion: it's easier to design glass optics for monochromatic light. As far as I know, it could have used a high-powered LED (or a bunch of them), and perhaps some interference filters to narrow the spectrum a bit more if needed to tweak output power vs. beam divergence due to chromatic aberration.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    9. Re:misnomer... by msauve · · Score: 1

      The laser isn't guiding the bullet. The bullet has a guidance system which steers it to a spot of light.

      Perhaps it's semantic. Is "guiding" telling you the destination, or how to get there? The laser provides the former, the bullet itself the latter. If guiding is the former, then can I point the laser in one direction, and fire the bullet in another (or significantly change the spot pointed to by the laser), and still expect it to work?

      "I'm not claiming this is a target-guided bullet, I'm saying it's laser-guided bullet."

      So, you're claiming that the laser spot isn't the target for the bullet? Now you're being silly, or trolling.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    10. Re:misnomer... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Paint porn on the inside of an egg which also contains the transmitter. Make a little hole in the egg for viewing. He'll hold it to his eye for minutes at a time.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    11. Re:misnomer... by exomondo · · Score: 3, Informative

      "I'm not claiming this is a target-guided bullet, I'm saying it's laser-guided bullet."
      So, you're claiming that the laser spot isn't the target for the bullet? Now you're being silly, or trolling.

      Of course the laser spot isn't the target for the bullet, who's trying to destroy a laser dot?! If you want to shoot someone standing in front of a wall and target them with a laser but they move out of the way before the bullet gets there the laser dot is going to be on the wall behind them, and you'll still hit the laser dot - because it is guiding the bullet - but did you hit the target? No, because the laser dot isn't the target, it's the guide!

      This really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp, I can't see why you're having so much trouble with it so let me try this a different way:
      If you are hiking with a guide what is that guide doing? He/she is 'guiding' you, and doing so not by moving you or positioning you, but by indicating where you need to go. Likewise the laser is indicating to the bullet where it needs to go, by definition it is guiding the bullet, if the laser weren't there the bullet would not know where to go because it has no guide, the bullet will go wherever the laser is pointing because the laser is the bullet's guide, if it were self-guided it wouldn't need a laser. Really it's not that hard.

      If you still don't get it then explain to me what you think the purpose of the laser is.

    12. Re:misnomer... by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course the laser spot isn't the target for the bullet, who's trying to destroy a laser dot?!

      Probably a cat.

    13. Re:misnomer... by Junta · · Score: 1

      It's more like saying the exit signs on a highway guide you to the correct road, which is a perfectly sensible sort of statement. People talk about GPS guidance even though the GPS isn't actually moving the wheels of the car.

      The argument that it isn't *necessarily* laser light required is close as you get, but laser guidance seems appropriate since laser light is the only practical light source to pair with this sort of technology.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    14. Re:misnomer... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      "Laser-guided," however, is an adjective, which implies no such thing. Also, verbs do not necessarily imply action. They can also mean a state of being, occurrence, or the relationship between two things. Note that last part, it's important.

      In this case, the bullet is guided by the reflected laser light.

      It's much like GPS guidance does not control a vehicle or vessel. The vehicle or vessel guides itself based on the input, but calling it something else requires an unnecessary amount of verbiage in order to accurately explain it. X-guidance is a shortcut, and is either readily understood or easily explained to those who don't understand.

      Another example, perhaps closer to the mark, is the use of lighthouses to guide ships. There's an actual person steering the ship, but that person is guided by the existence of the light. The light tells them where they need to go (or not go, as is more frequently the case with lighthouses).

    15. Re:misnomer... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, the control logic and fins are steering the bullet, which is guided by the laser, just as sailors of old were guided by the stars, but steered by their rudders and sails.

    16. Re:misnomer... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's OK, anyone can look like a hot chick over there... black burka.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:misnomer... by netwarerip · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but not accurate enough. This is a bullet we are talking about, not a missile. Try getting an enemy combatant to hold one of your transmitters. Maybe tell him its an iPod. Chances are pretty good you find yourself strapped to a tree with it taped to your chest.

      Well, if you can get that close to the guy why not just shoot him yourself?

    18. Re:misnomer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and if the laser and cat are inside a box, the laser can be both dead and alive...

    19. Re:misnomer... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Technically your correct, the bullet isn't laser guided, as in the MIM-14 Nike-Hercules was a radar guide missile, and the MIM-23 Hawk is a Semi-active radar homing missile, likewise the AGM-114 Hellfire is primarily Semi-Active Laser Homing up until the terminal phase of the flight and then can revert to millimeter wave radar seeker; but that's way more pedantic than most people will tolerate.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  39. And who is holding the laser pointer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I guess it has to be pretty steady for the time it takes to fire this bullet (and for it to reach target), and "shot" from relatively remote location, which seem to require sniper-type skill on behalf of the "painter", but not shooter.

    One scenario where it can be feasible though if "painter" position is closer to the enemy, and it is harder to determine where laser is shot from than were that bullet just flew from.

    Paul B.

    1. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess it has to be pretty steady for the time it takes to fire this bullet (and for it to reach target), and "shot" from relatively remote location, which seem to require sniper-type skill on behalf of the "painter", but not shooter.

      It requires the high tech 'sniper' skill of "setting up a tripod, pointing the laser at the target, and then taking your hands off". Seriously, a sniper's skill lies not in putting the crosshairs on the target, but in putting the crosshairs off the target... such that wind, bullet drop due to gravity, etc.. etc.. ends up putting the bullet where the amateur would put the crosshairs - and miss. But wind, gravity, etc... don't effect the laser, so an amateur can place the crosshair by eye.

    2. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      Screw that, I'm putting up disco balls and playing lots of lasers off them.

    3. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Presumeably, if / when they get this perfected, the squad Sargent ( or whomever ) paints the bad guy with a computer controlled laser (the Navy version, of course, uses a shark) and the rest of the grunts pull the trigger on their AR-18 turbo rifles. The computer ( or shark )keeps track of the victim running away or getting into their tank. Then splat. $10,000 dollars down the drain. But we've used lasers. So it's cool.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sniping is mostly about knowing the relationships between a complex set of circumstances. You could train a monkey to use a scope to paint a target with a laser. You know you're on target because you can see the laser on the target.

      Knowing you're on target to sent a dumb bullet into a target a mile away is many orders of magnitude more difficult.

    5. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kind of, but you are missing an important point, since the point of this is to improve long range accuracy, well beyond the range of standard infantry weapons (SA80 400m, LSW 1000m) the squad who has this technology has a significant advantage against one that doesn't.

      There is also another possibility. The laser needs direct line of sight, but the bullet following a ballistic path only needs to find a laser dot far enough out to have time to correct it's course. Stick a recon guy with a laser designator on the ridge of a hill, keep the rest of the squad on the far side of the hill and fire above the ridge line in the general direction of the enemy. Accurate indirect fire using infantry weapons from a position that the enemy could never hit (beyond a 1 in a billion lucky shot).

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    6. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, a sniper's skill lies not in putting the crosshairs on the target, but in putting the crosshairs off the target... such that wind, bullet drop due to gravity, etc.. etc.. ends up putting the bullet where the amateur would put the crosshairs - and miss. But wind, gravity, etc... don't effect the laser, so an amateur can place the crosshair by eye.

      Actually, you do not put the crosshair off the target, instead you adjust the correct elevation and windage values on the scope, and then put the crosshairs on the target (unless the target is moving, that's when most snipers will "lead the target"). However, finding the correct values to "dial in" depends on many factors, such as slope angle, temperature, barometric pressure/altitude, even humidity has a slight effect, wind direction etc., so you need to have precise information on the weapon's ballistic properties to adjust it correctly. That's the reason why a sniper rifle without its sniper is virtually useless.

      But wind, gravity, etc... don't effect the laser, so an amateur can place the crosshair by eye.

      True, most of the ballistics problems are gone; although it would certainly help to be as close to the bullet's natural path as possible (if you are zeroed at 100 meters, the bullet will lose a lot of energy if you are going to hit a target at 800, because that homing bullet will have to use kinetic energy from speed to compensate for bullet drop)

    7. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by supercrisp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Putting the crosshairs off the target is called "kentuckying" or "kentucky windage"; it's for amateur hour. Snipers use scopes that let you dial in the range and windage so that the cross hairs keep the point of aim and point of impact the same. Some scopes for short range sniping use "mil-dots," which is an indexed system of little aimpoints up the vertical axis and along the horizontal axis. Those are typically used in telescopic sights of low magnification. (My hobby used to be long-distance target shooting; now I have a wife and kids; my hobby is dodging responsibility.)

    8. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I guess it has to be pretty steady for the time it takes to fire this bullet (and for it to reach target), and "shot" from relatively remote location, which seem to require sniper-type skill on behalf of the "painter", but not shooter.

      It requires the high tech 'sniper' skill of "setting up a tripod, pointing the laser at the target, and then taking your hands off". Seriously, a sniper's skill lies not in putting the crosshairs on the target, but in putting the crosshairs off the target... such that wind, bullet drop due to gravity, etc.. etc.. ends up putting the bullet where the amateur would put the crosshairs - and miss. But wind, gravity, etc... don't effect the laser, so an amateur can place the crosshair by eye.

      I have my doubts that they will be able to have the early versions of this bullet adapt to the climate conditions that a sniper can do in his head or on instinct.

      Can the bullet take into account windage? Drop? Weather? The curve of the Earth (at extreme ranges)?

      That's probably why the range is only 1 mile. That, and possibly the laser not being able to paint the target powerfully enough at that distance.

    9. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just use mortars which would probably be cheaper.

    10. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I have my doubts that they will be able to have the early versions of this bullet adapt to the climate conditions that a sniper can do in his head or on instinct. Can the bullet take into account windage? Drop? Weather? The curve of the Earth (at extreme ranges)?

      Umm... you don't actually understand how guided weapons work do you? They (duh) guide themselves to the target. If the wind moves them to the left, they steer themselves to the right, etc... all automatically. That's the whole point of the bullet being guided in the first place - for it to adapt to those conditions.
       

      That's probably why the range is only 1 mile. That, and possibly the laser not being able to paint the target powerfully enough at that distance.

      It's much more likely that the range limit comes from the projectile being fired by a smooth-bore weapon - it's not going to be very stable in flight. I suspect that while the current version can steer towards the target, it's limited in it's ability to maintain attitude.

    11. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I messed up my description some, but I was in a hurry and trying to be brief. I did get the general idea across though. (I hope.)

    12. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Funny, but you might be on to something. Knowing the right wavelength of the emitter you can then paint phony targets LOL

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    13. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I can see this replacing the need for highly skilled and trained snipers for stationary targets. But I wonder whether or not it'll be able to adjust quickly enough for moving targets.

      The bullet isn't calculating where the target will be, rather it is directing it's self to where ever that target is at the instant of it's calculation. If that target is moving erratically and or quickly enough it could be well beyond the ability of the smart bullet to correct it's course. They've already said that it's accuracy increases a good deal for targets over a mile away because it has more time to finely adjust it's aim. But how much change in the targets location does it take to overcome the bullets capability to change course.

      I realize that these are challenges that human shooters already face. But our brains are able to see patterns and anticipate a targets motion and then send a bullet downrange to intercept a moving target. Whereas this bullet sounds like it could easily end up always trailing a moving target because it can't plot an intercept course.

    14. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      To your first point standard infantry battles probably wouldn't change much because all of the mile long sniper shot records of the last 10 years have been due to high altitude fighting in the mountains.

      To your sceond point, if I have the laser to paint somebody, I can direct fire on him with a .50 cal version of this, call in bunker busters, or artillery that will all follow the dot, if the guidance systems of all these systems are designed to work together.

      Also Drones, if I can put these in 25mm, suddenly I can get A-10s, Cobras, and maybe someday soon a Drone to provide Close air support and I paint the bad guys with my laser.

      The future of this technology is not entangling the laser with the rifle.

    15. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Snipers use scopes that let you dial in the range and windage so that the cross hairs keep the point of aim and point of impact the same.

      'Important' snipers do more than that - their scope adjustments are informed by satellite laser 'soundings' of the atmosphere between the sniper and his target. Pockets of varying air density and micro wind currents can apparently make enough of an impact at 1.5-2 miles to cause a bullet to stray several inches.

      The distance is sufficient that those around the victim may never actually hear the report. I was told they only bother with this gear for very high value targets where deniability is important.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:And who is holding the laser pointer? by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      The low range is due to the low muzzle velocity. They expect to need a custom gunpowder mix to get the muzzle velocity up high enough to meet military standards.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
  40. Oblg: marksman != sniper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All snipers are marksmen, but not all marksmen are snipers. A sniper is someone trained in the COMPLETE art of infiltrating an area and eliminating a target. Marksmen are people who can simply hit an object with a gun.

    1. Re:Oblg: marksman != sniper by prediff · · Score: 2

      All snipers are marksmen, but not all marksmen are snipers. A sniper is someone trained in the COMPLETE art of infiltrating an area and eliminating a target. Marksmen are people who can simply hit an object with a gun.

      Marksman is someone who can hit a target *reliably*.
      Sniper is any marksman who is concealed, not really infiltrating and eliminating, unless you are thinking of a ninja marksman, that would be awesome...

  41. High Tech-Pocket wife. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for my portable hole...

    You're married, aren't you?

  42. Curve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can curve bullets!

    1. Re:Curve by PPH · · Score: 1

      But you ain't Angelina Jolie.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  43. Awesome by Mr2cents · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just what the world needs: more weaponry. Don't these people have anything better to do with their lives than inventing new murder equipment?

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    1. Re:Awesome by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Some people don't, which is why you'd better dedicate some time for the same, as well, just in case.

  44. One mile? by Snufu · · Score: 1

    I'm not gonna spycrab a whole mile. I'm going sniper.

  45. Fire a same type of bullet from the opposite side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it hit the laser source first? Will it block the laser on its way to hit the laser source?

  46. Do tanks have a similar system? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im curious, im not a military/weapons fan, but a system like this seems like a must for tank, or perhaps those last resourt anti air/missile units in navy vessels.

  47. Ouila! Ze Zorg ZF-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Closing in on the Zorg ZF-1:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxjnl1yuXk

    Mah favorite...

  48. Coming soon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Bob what's that red dot on your forehead?

  49. Improved Kill Ratio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news! Maybe now we can fight future wars without using a million bullets to kill one enemy combatant. Only two or three of these newfangled projectiles should do the job.

    This is no exaggeration. The estimate from WWII is that the ratio of bullets:killed was about 3 miilion:1.

  50. It's not 10cm either... by MufasaZX · · Score: 1

    Look at the pictures, it's 10mm, the article got that and a whole lot of other shooting terms wrong. 10CM would be closer to something you'd mount on an M1 tank :-P

  51. other smooth bore shoulder gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is a shotgun, Alex?

  52. Laser and shark meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The laser and shark meme is tired, unoriginal, old, and far overused. Any discussion on this site involving lasers has the majority of the posts referencing the same unoriginal, old, and tired meme. And for some reason, all of you mod them well up to +5 funny when they should all be modded redundant or offtopic.

    Slashdot is complete stagnated. There is no longer intelligent or worthwhile discussion here.

    1. Re:Laser and shark meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, meme retires you!

    2. Re:Laser and shark meme by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The laser and shark meme is tired, unoriginal, old, and far overused. Any discussion on this site involving lasers has the majority of the posts referencing the same unoriginal, old, and tired meme. And for some reason, all of you mod them well up to +5 funny when they should all be modded redundant or offtopic.

      Slashdot is complete stagnated. There is no longer intelligent or worthwhile discussion here.

      Don't let the shark bite you on your way out!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  53. Reminds me of an album... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing is my business... and business is good!

  54. Changes the ethics of war? by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    With a bullet where you can literally point a laser at a spot and it hits the spot, it seems to me that the only ethical decision would be to shoot enemy troops in the kneecaps or somewhere debilitating but not life threatening.

    1. Re:Changes the ethics of war? by schn · · Score: 2

      FA says it gets within 8 inches which still means you have to aim at their chest

    2. Re:Changes the ethics of war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thinking! Draw the medics out from cover and then blow their heads off.

      No wait, hoist thousands of cripples upon the enemy's economy, letting them drain resources and morale, and then after they've diverted a sizable fraction of GDP away from defense for a couple decades, roll in and blow all their heads off.

  55. Perspective by PPH · · Score: 1

    Its either this or an iPhone 6.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Perspective by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Its either this or an iPhone 6.

      So murder equipment or suicide equipment,

      Seriously, cant we just sent people into space or something with this money.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  56. What kind of sensors does it use? by CityZen · · Score: 1

    I wonder what kind of MEMS sensors for accelerometers & gyros it uses that aren't destroyed by the initial acceleration when fired?

  57. There's a fatal flaw in the design of this... by larys · · Score: 1

    If pointing a laser at something guides the bullet towards/away from an object...what prevents someone from *points laser at someone*...um...whoops...hey, it's alright, you have two kneecaps, right? I can see some serious repercussions for having this be attracted just to some general laser beam. Also, will there perhaps be many unexplained shootings at rave parties now due to military testing...? Just when you think laser light effects are harmless to all non-feline mammals unless shone in the eye... :/

  58. and here i was hoping by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the scourge of grammar nazis was getting farther away from slashdot. i said farther. i also didn't capitalize

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  59. i want to see by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    a bullet made of hope diamond that shoots a laser out of its tip, whose photon pressure is used to guide a piranha in a miniature hang glider, holding a sign that says "pull my finger"

    c'mon people! get it made!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  60. peace is not mankind's natural state by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    peace is an artificial invention of civilization, requiring a constant outward implied threat of force. take away that outward threat and chaos ensues and someone walks in and starts waging war, warlords. until someone consolidates power, a police force maintains internal equilibrium and a military maintains an outward hostile tension, and so a new peaceful equilibrium is established

    i'm sorry, but that's the reality you live in. the natural world is a state of constant terror and violence. the peace you love and cherish is something artificial that mankind invented, and that is a good thing. but you need to understand how peace actually works, rather than make up myths about it being some sort of effortless state. no, peace is an expensive luxury of civilization that requires constant tension and maintenance to exist

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:peace is not mankind's natural state by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      The threats you cite are also the product of civilization. Peace is prior.

  61. First . . . sorta by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

    On a nerdy note, I designed something about like this for a roleplaying game back when I was in Junior high.

  62. At 1 mile, are we talking mini-artillery shot? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    I have to wonder, if you're using a later spotting and a laser-guided bullet, and shooting for greater than a mile away, wouldn't the shot resemble something more like an artillery gun - wouldn't you have to point the gun like 40, 45 degrees in the air (to account for the drop from gravity which would occur over those sorts of distances, even with a high-velocity bullet), fire, and let its guidance bring it down in the right spot, as opposed to the "flatter" trajectory of a traditional rifle shot?

  63. seems half baked for some reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is going to fly as well as that idiotic thermal display camouflage BAE? demoed on the side of a armored vehicle a few months back. I think BAE is so overwhelmed with orders that they haven't had time to release yet another marketing video.

    Puny optics has one or two seconds to acquire a probably rather faint reflection of a rather spread out laser spot.
    To manufacture this in the United States will probably cost $500 per bullet.
    Let's give BAE a run for their money for the hare brained engineering award of the year.

  64. Problem? by Millennium · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with a little fun with memes? The concept of comedy through popular imagery, even when it gets repetitious, is far older than the Internet. How long, exactly, have we been talking about chickens crossing the road? How many of the jokes in Shakespeare still resonate with English-speakers today (substitute equivalent literary references for other languages as needed; they all work)?

    If you think about it, we've really just all been telling the same basic jokes for thousands of years. The forms are different, but the archetypes and general situations are the same. Despite this, they don't get old. Why pretend, when different tellings of the same joke remain funny, that the same or similar tellings don't likewise remain so?

    Seriously, man. Come on. Come to think of it, maybe I can best illustrate with a story, so I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel-Air. In West Philadelphia, born and raised, on a playground was where I spent most of my days: chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool and all shooting some B-ball outside of the school, when a couple of guys who were up to no good started making trouble in my neighborhood. I got in one little fight and my mom got scared and said "You're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air."

    I whistled for a cab, and when it came near the license plate said "FRESH" and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare, but I thought "Naw, forget it. Yo Home, to Bel-Air!" I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 and I yelled to the cabbie "Yo Home, smell you later!" I looked at my kingdom: I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the prince of Bel-Air.

  65. not exactly a bullet by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

    This is not exactly a bullet.
    100mm is not a personal weapon.
    This is artillery
    This is not exactly new
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead
    This is just a smaller, newer version.

    1. Re:not exactly a bullet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA it has a picture, the saboted fin stabilized projectile is 10cm long, not wide.

  66. 10 cm ~ 4 inches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This bullet is more like a small rocket than a bullet. Normally, bullets are specified in their diameter. The smooth bore gun must be a rocket launcher.

  67. It's not 10cm caliber. It's 10cm long. by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many people have commented that 10cm is up there in artillery-shell caliber. This new bullet is 10cm long. The pictures show something that's in a typical small-arms caliber, probably 9mm or smaller. It will require a special gun that can chamber an unusually long cartridge, but not an artillery piece.

    The real win with this thing will be hitting moving targets. No more estimating range and leading the target. Just keep pointed at it. Sighting and designator system that can lock onto a target already exist, and shrinking them down to rifle-scope size isn't all that hard. There's more video processing going on in any modern video camera or phone.

  68. Zorg Approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voila! The ZF-1. It's light, the handle's adjustable for easy carrying, good for righties and lefties.Breaks down into four parts, undetectable by X-rays.. It's the ideal weapon for quick, discreet interventions. A word on fire power: Titanium recharger. 3000 round clip with bursts of 3 to 300. With the replay button, another Zorg innovation, it's even easier... one shot immediately sends every following shot to the same location.

  69. 10cm length bullet dart? Can we say A-10... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10cm dart bullet is similar to the 20mm bullet used in the A-10's gatling gun...

    Sniper XL targeting pod on an A-10, laser guided rounds, big ass gatling gun. I smell love here. It would make the A-10 GODLY, but would necessitate a 2 seater conversion for a RWO to do the target selection and interact better with forward controllers and other ground assets.

    For a related concept, see the Firefox Gunship design from CalPoly, which had a cannon firing laser guided 105mm CTA shells, as well as CTA guns firing laser guided 40mm explosive rounds as well.

    http://aerosim.calpoly.edu/projects/past-projects/
    http://aerosim.calpoly.edu/media/cms_page_media/14/Firefox_AIAA_Final_pt1.pdf
    http://aerosim.calpoly.edu/media/cms_page_media/14/Firefox_AIAA_Final_pt2.pdf

  70. if you can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Surely if you can put a dot on a target with the laser, why not just shoot the target with the laser?
    -Turn it to setting one for aiming and all the way up to eleven for killing. -Simple!

  71. Video in Starbreeze Syndicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ea.com/syndicate
    Starbreeze Syndicate have homing bullets in the game, check videos.

  72. What if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if the enemy has laser sights mounted on their weapons. Will you end up shooting them in the eye if they're looking down their sight or would it confuse the bullet? I think we could be more humane and just shoot everyone in the hand like Rex OHerlihan the Singing Cowboy.

  73. The Replay Button! by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Now Zorg really CAN invent the Replay Button!

  74. Moving targets by LinuxFreakus · · Score: 2

    If you are shooting from great distances wouldn't you still need to actually keep the laser on the target if the target moves?

  75. Hax! by MistrX · · Score: 1

    Usage of aimbots is considered cheating. How is that solved in the Geneva treaty?

  76. Re:At 1 mile, are we talking mini-artillery shot? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    The muzzle velocity of an SA80 (which isn't exactly modern anymore) is 940 m/s, or about 2100 miles per hour. That means that it takes 1.7 seconds for the bullet to travel one mile. For vertical distance, s = ut+0.5at^2, where u is 0 and a is g, gives us 0.5g*1.7^2, or 14.2m. Now some basic trigonometry. You have a triangle 14.2 metres on one the opposite side, 1609 on the adjacent. arctan(14.2/1609) is about 0.5 degrees. So, you'd have to aim very, very slightly above the horizontal.

    Of course, the SA80 isn't designed for this kind of range, and a weapon designed for this kind of range would have a faster muzzle velocity. I'm also fudging the calculation slightly by assuming that there is no air resistance - in practice the bullet would be slowing down a bit. I doubt you'd need more than 1 or 2 degrees elevation, however.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  77. Good ol' Zorg by Masfonos · · Score: 1

    One step closer to ZF-1

  78. Life copies art... by TheBouncer2006 · · Score: 1

    Sounds just like the movie Runaway... Then I started thinking how many other things out there have copied movies...

    DARPA is working on cloaking technology like the Predator & Star Trek (someone from DARPA actually called the movie studio in 1986 to ask how they made the predator invisible, apparently the person calling from DARPA didn't know much about Hollywood Special FX

    MIT & DARPA - Remote controlled bugs like the dragonfly in Lexx

    DARPA, Air Force, South Korea & Others Drones & Robots Like Deal of the Century, Robocop's ED209,

    XBox Kinect - Minority Report Computer Interface

    Gecko Robot & Wall Climbing - Spiderman

    If life keeps copying art we're all in deep s**t! Who's looking forward to our robot overlords ?

  79. Meh by mdsolar · · Score: 1
  80. From Chuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saw it first on CHUCK (NBC).

  81. Interesting tech... by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

    Interesting tech, but a bit pointless in it's current garb. If you can get a clear line of sight to point a laser at a target, you can get a clear line of sight to shoot a bullet at the target.

    I suppose it may be possible to more easily hide a laser pointing device that is painting the target compared to a gun, but considering that the weapon still needs a clear (and presumably pretty wide) flight path to the target, which also has the ability to see the laser dot the entire time this is really just an exercise in "cool but not very useful" tech.

    --
    Just another ignorant American.
  82. Smart Bullets by bodland · · Score: 1

    Thanks Sandia for that great gift to humanity....

  83. Miniature Smart Bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically this is just a really small smart bomb.

    Same principal, the inertia imparted by the gun powder carries the slug from the gun to the target, instead of a 500 lb bomb being hauled into the air, and being dropped onto target.

    In flight, the fins on both will adjust the flight path by creating drag and altering the airflow around the object. The fins are controlled based on a signal in an optical receiver in the nose, which a controller interprets when making adjustments to the fins.

    The main difference being that the electronics of the bullet have to be much smaller and still survive the propellant explosion that shoots the slug at the target.

  84. Guided by... 8 bits? by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    From the article: "an eight-bit central processing unit to command electromagnetic actuators..."

    The 6502. Is there anything it can't do?

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  85. Shades of the movie Runaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shades of the movie Runaway with Tom Selleck in 1984. Similar bullet/round but not going around corners yet. the 2012 sensor requires laser painted target. Getting there with the miniaturaization though. Another few years?

  86. Super Mario Brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    predicted this years ago.

  87. Shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm always surprised how people can make it their job to find better ways to kill other people.
    Because let's face it, this is not meant for killing animals or criminals.

  88. Oxymoran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What on earth is a "smooth-bore rifle". If it has a smooth bore then it's not rifled. If it's a rifle then it doesn't have a smooth bore.

  89. New Weapons by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

    I have commented twice in email to friends about this story already.

    You could unscrew the barrel from the receiver of a modern .50 caliber rifle and substitute a smoothbore. The "you" being a gunsmith in this case. Then you either let your spotter paint the target with the laser, or you attach a laser to your rifle, get some kind of a laser designating scope.

    What SHOULD happen is for them to develop a rifle where the entire purpose is to get this round to maximum velocity that the electronics can control. Then incorporate the laser designator into the scope and isolate the scope as much as possible from the recoil of the weapon, the scope would no longer need to be directly inline with the barrel as you only need to be in the general vicinty and the round will converge with the laser over time.

    What should also happen is that they build an Unmanned Drone that loiters over battlefields for Ground Assault support armed with a .50 caliber or similar munition, load it with thousands of these rounds and allow soldiers on the ground to designate targets on the ground that they need eliminated without any civilian casualties. As the round has an 8 inch drift from target, you can assume a 16 inch group. If your badguy is at starbucks, nobody else at the same table would be harmed when you took him out. Compare that to the "we killed the whole wedding party to get one guy" and you'll see this is a marked improvement for bystanders.

  90. Re:Really? +++_#&****(__** NO CARRIER by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · · Score: 1

    That's hardly necessary. I figured out that it was a joke without even needing to know where it came from. Granted, I thought it was more or less yet another "the FBI will never find me here - brb doorbell" post. Also, candleja

    --
    I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
  91. AutoTune for snipers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great, now Justin Bieber will be able to shoot, too!

  92. accurate target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It able to target accurately.It also work as a spy.Cause it added with scientific factors.so it's not treated as a normal bullets. currency exchange