Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Successfully Demonstrates Self-Guiding Bullets

Posted by Soulskill on from the jerks-with-aim-bots dept.

Lucas123 writes: A DARPA-funded project has successfully developed a .50 caliber sniper round capable of maneuvering during flight in order to remain on target. The self-guiding EXACTO bullet, as it's being called, is optically guided by a laser that must remain on target for the bullet to track. The EXACTO round is capable of accurately tracking a target up to 1.2 miles away, DARPA stated. The technology, which is being developed by Teledyne Scientific and Imaging, is targeted at helping snipers remain at longer distances from targets as well as improving night shots. While DARPA's tracking bullet is the first to use a standard, small-arms caliber round, in 2012 Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) successfully demonstrated a prototype self-guided bullet that was more like like a four-inch dart.

29 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. No fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cheaters! Who's the admin? We need to ban those losers.

    1. Re:No fair by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      All these years, all these years to duplicate the exact same 60s tech that was used in the crazy bullet that killed JFK.

      Or something.

  2. Creepy by Slizzo · · Score: 2

    A .50cal round shot out of either a M2 machine gun, or M82 or one of it's many variants is scary enough. Now to have a round that can guide itself? Downright creepy.

    1. Re:Creepy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously, the only way this could be spoof-proof is to modulate the laser with some type of crypto.

      In practice, by the time you realize that a sniper was targeting you, it is too late to start spoofing.

    2. Re:Creepy by harrkev · · Score: 2

      You got it. Lasers are cheap... electronics are cheap... batteries are cheap... spoofing is cheap.

      Really, as an engineer, I can imagine two ways for this thing to work, and it depends on if the projectile spins. Typically, bullets spin so that they act as gyroscopes -- always pointing the same direction (YouTube has videos of guys firing pistols into ice -- ice stops bullet which just sits there and spins like a top).

      If the projectile spins, you can, in theory, guide it with a single fin that can extend or retract. You could not use a standard camera as such, because you are spinning wildly. Assume 2000 FPS bullets -- if you want to shoot a mile, you need at least this much. Also assume a 1-in-12 twist (real twists are in the range of 1-in-7 to 1-in-14, depending on shape and weights of bullet). That means that the bullet is spinning with a approximate rotation of 2 KHz. I doubt that you could have an effective regular camera spinning like that and still work. A better way would be to have a linear sensor (a line camera) that looks forward and to the side. This could operate. When you see a bright stop, see how far it is from the center. More off-center = kick your fin a bit more. This is simple and straightforward. However, since the bullet is spinning and you do not know when the camera will cross the laser, you probably need to keep the laser on full time. This is probably the easiest and cheapest way to accomplish this, but should be easily spoofed. You could maybe put a crypto on the laser signal by changing the intensity of the signal without turning it off, but it would have to be a much lower frequency than 2 KHz because that is your effective sample rate. If you assume 500 Hz signal (four-times oversampling), you would only get about 500 bits of data before you hit your target (assuming a target 2000 feet away). Is that enough to actually apply crypto? I am not sure...

      On the other hand, if the bullet is NOT spinning, you can use a regular camera and regular fins to control it. In that case, it is entirely reasonable to embed some sort of cryptographic modulation on the signal. In any case, the existence of a 2-D sensor makes the bullet more expensive, and increases the amount of processing that needs to be done. It should, however, be more feasible to put crypto, but at greater cost.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:Creepy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      It would probably be easier to have a couple cameras capable of seeing infrared and ultraviolet. You will see the laser on target and can just remove yourself from the area before the trigger is pulled.

      An obvious countermeasure would be to have the laser turn on only when the trigger is pulled. With a velocity of about a km per sec, the bullet won't give you much time to "remove yourself from the area".

      But all these silly scenarios about "always on" spoofing, and arrays of cameras, are not realistic. Most of America's likely adversaries are not sophisticated. The likely target of this weapon is going to be some impoverished kid wiring up a dud mortar round as an IED by the side of the road.

    4. Re:Creepy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one is going to waste a $250 smart bullet attached to a $5000 weapon system on some kid.

      The Iraq war has killed an estimated 300,000, and we have spent about $500 BILLION to do it. That comes out to about $1.7 million per kill, and MANY of them were kids. $250, or even $5000, is an infinitesimal sliver of a rounding error when it comes to the cost of a war.

    5. Re:Creepy by goarilla · · Score: 2

      C'mon the effect of gravity on photons is negligable even at ranges of 1-2 km. How much is the drop after 7 microseconds of travel time (~250 micrometers if my math is correct, but I doubt it) ?

  3. Alternate use for this technology by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Imagine a round that *avoids* a target. No more friendly fire!

    1. Re:Alternate use for this technology by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rest assured that a hack is already in the making.

      I don't get the US. I mean, by now you should have noticed that the bigger and more complicated the technology, the more you play into your opponent's hands. First of all, you're using high tech weapons in a low tech war. You can't really fire any round anymore that doesn't cost you more than what your target cost your enemy. Welcome to asymmetric warfare. I don't know why I have to say it, I thought it's obvious: You're essentially in the unfunny situation the British were in when you had your fight for independence. And on top of it you also have to pose as the good guy, you can't even simply level the land and bury what's living under the rubble.

      In basically all the wars the US had gotten into lately, they had the superior technology and the inferior position. Let's look at the stats. The US is fighting an enemy who not only doesn't give half a shit about collateral damage (the US at least have to pretend they care, so they can't use the aforementioned "scorched earth" tactics), an enemy that does not identify itself as such (so pretty much anyone and everyone could be hostile), while at the same time those that are NOT hostile may not be touched (since the US want to be the "good" guy and the backlash is considerable when something surfaces). And unlike the average US soldier, the enemy doesn't even give a shit whether he survives the war.

      That's not a position from which you can win a war. The US loses unless they win, their enemy wins as long as they don't lose. That cannot be won in a scenario where your enemy is in a position where it does not matter to him how many resources he loses as long as he can inflict damage on you.

      Precision bombing and precision shooting is a fine thing if you have a target. That's the main problem the US is facing today. It's trivial for them to eliminate any target anywhere on the planet. The problem is FINDING it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Alternate use for this technology by harrkev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't get the US. I mean, by now you should have noticed that the bigger and more complicated the technology, the more you play into your opponent's hands. First of all, you're using high tech weapons in a low tech war. You can't really fire any round anymore that doesn't cost you more than what your target cost your enemy.

      Off topic, I admit, but this reminds me of the current Isreal/Hamaas conflict. Just launch simple, dumb, and cheap unguided rockets from the Gaza Strip. Isreal has an "Iron Dome" defense system that is supposedly pretty effective at stopping them -- at $1,000,000 per shot. Great way to bankrupt an enemy...

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:Alternate use for this technology by F34nor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are obviously not part of the military industrial complex! Fuck effective go expensive every time. For the price of one nuclear carrier we could have 50 diesel carrier groups with planes. I know professor that showed that for the price of 1 F14 you could equip a squadron of DeHavalin mosquitoes with Phoenix missiles. Stealth because they are made out of wood and 50 guided missiles will ace any fighter pilot in the sky.

    4. Re:Alternate use for this technology by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      That's the key in asymmetric warfare. Basically what you need is:

      - An expendable population that is not only willing to fight but also to die for you, your goal, your god, whatever.
      - Cheap weapons (manpower is no issue, people are cheap)
      - And enemy who doesn't have the two above.

      If you can muster that, you have won. There is no way short of total annihilation that you could possibly lose.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Alternate use for this technology by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it's something like $50k-$70k per shot, not $1M, and it can automatically scratch out those projectiles heading into uninhabited areas from its target list. And whenever it destroys a projectile heading for a building or some inhabited place, it not only saves lives but it also quite often saves more money than it costs (the building and infrastructure rebuilds can be costlier than the interceptors), so it really can be a cost-effective solution under the circumstances.

      Coming up (if successful): Iron Beam, the fiber-laser-powered interceptor with even better operating costs.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Alternate use for this technology by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Well, it just MIGHT work to give people a reason not to hate the US and instead turn towards the shit that you don't want to go down. It worked like a charm after WW2, didn't it?

      The cheapest way to retain the order that you want somewhere is to give the people there a reason to want it, too. That works great if you can show them the benefit of your way of life. Of course, that first of all requires that your way of life must have some benefit for them, though...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Alternate use for this technology by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      Great way to bankrupt an enemy...

      Israel's defense budget, and a good chunk of Iron Dome in particular, is funded by the US taxpayer as a kickback scheme to funnel more money to US weaponry manufacturers. Israel only benefits when they have an excuse to fire their guns every once in a while since it keeps Congress from questioning why we give them so many billions in the name of "peace". 1984-style perpetual war is great for business.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    8. Re:Alternate use for this technology by ComputersKai · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Take a look at a map. You notice there's a country bordering Gaza called Egypt? The Israelis are stopping them from going to and from Egypt? Looks like a pretty leaky cage.

      Hmm...oh really? Then why aren't there massive "exoduses" away from the missile strikes, apart from relatively smaller groups of refugees?

      Bullshit. Take a look at a map. You notice there's a country bordering Gaza called Egypt? The Israelis are stopping them from going to and from Egypt? Looks like a pretty leaky cage.

      If the Paslestinians are "animals", then the Israelis must be the poachers with missiles.

    9. Re:Alternate use for this technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And thats why "hearts and minds" is so important, something few of the soldiers will accept despite it being part of their fucking orders. The only way to win is to get the population to turn against the antagonists who are hiding amongst them, rather than sheltering them and providing them with supplies.

    10. Re:Alternate use for this technology by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Really?

      Fuck, the terrorists won, they're all over the US already!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Alternate use for this technology by Sciath · · Score: 2

      Astonishingly simple; except your take is exactly what one would expect from a dedicated soldier. Yet the assessment lacks historical finesse. Your sole focus was in the capabilities of the American fighting machine being best trained, equipped etc. That may be correct in large part. History has shown though that an indigenous people cannot be subjugated for long. The Iraqis are at each other's throats specifically BECAUSE Hussein was taken out. It's their country and they'll fuck it up any way they choose. Besides, the nation of Iraq was a creation of post WW II politics on the part of the victors. It was pure hubris and ignorance on the part of the U.S. to create the power vacuum there. The Shiite, Sunni and Kurds have all been engaged in their own power struggle for decades as a direct result of WW II politics. Point being... they are all indigenous peoples who push come to shove did not and do not want us there. They only cooperated insofar as it benefitted their own sect. Result? Chaos ultimately. Why? The Bushes had a bone to pick with Hussein. The justification for the entire invasion was a creation in Bush's head encouraged by his wingnut advisors who should all be sitting in a federal pen right now. We lost Korea, Vietnam, and every other conflict since then BECAUSE we took it upon ourselves to (attempt) instill western values across the planet when the indigenous peoples and their cultures were either incompatible with those values or the people themselves were recalcitrant about foreign "invaders". They have a right to fuck up their own little part of the planet just as we do ours (and in the manner we see fit). Not EVERYONE understands, values or desires our way of life even though generations of Americans have been told they do. When the indigenous people can't identify with you or your culture even the best foreign efforts at change will be for not.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
  4. Re:I don't think I like this by preaction · · Score: 2

    That's the fun problem with an arms race: If you don't race, you lose. If you do race, you still lose.

  5. We are winning! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There is no question it is an amazing technology. As an engineer I can only say, wow!.

    But as a taxpayer ...

    And each bullet costs just two times the GDP of the entire village the terrorist is hailing from! And we will make up for it in volume too!

    Some times I wonder if it would be cheaper to feed, cloth, provide healthcare and house all the Afghans than what we spent on military over there. Afghanistan hardly has 30 million people. Per capita income is 500$ a year. Just 15 billion dollars total. We spent 1 trillion dollars in the war over there. Our government is borrowing at historically low rate, 10 year t-bills go at 2.5%, the interest charges on that debt alone is 25 billion dollars a year!

    I don't know if it would have worked. But the idea goes like, take a large well defended perimeter. Free food, clothing, hospitals and homes inside. Let people in after disarming them. Expand the area as more and more people move in. We might be able to take in 90% of the population inside, standing obediently at the breadline and the hospital waiting rooms. I don't know. May be an idiot slashdot keyboard warrior.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:We are winning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its cheaper, but less effective.

      American "soft power" has been used across the world for decade and the sad truth is, in some places, it just doesn't work (in some places, it works fantastically). Even if you feed them, cloth them, house them and provide free healthcare, its not good enough. Some of them, they want jobs. Some of them, they want power. Some of them, they want to get the fuck out because they can't see themselves making a life for themselves there.

    2. Re:We are winning! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      And each bullet costs just two times the GDP of the entire village the terrorist is hailing from!

      Each bullet creates two more "terrorists", or "freedom fighters" as they were known back in the 80s when they were our friends.

      The best thing to do is provide aid from a distance, but otherwise don't get involved. No troops, no arming one side or the other, just food and medicine. The Islamists were losing until we destabilized those countries to the point where they could start winning.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:We are winning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What a load of condescending shit. If you Americans simply had taken out the bad apples and left, this would have been a minimal affair. Instead the Gleichgeschaltete Propaganda of the American Imperium told people that "now we have to build schools, and hospitals and and and".

      In reality, it was about the business of the war industry. The Afghans know who to police themselves and they simply don't want your hospitals. Because these come nicely packaged with an Edgar J. Hoover Secret Police. People who will spit into your face and then simulate either your drowning or your electrocution. They call this "civilization".

      Fuck yeah. Afghans love freedom and kicked you out.

    4. Re:We are winning! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you Americans simply had taken out the bad apples and left, this would have been a minimal affair. Instead the Gleichgeschaltete Propaganda of the American Imperium told people that "now we have to build schools, and hospitals and and and".

      If you don't build schools, the "bad apples" will be back in less than a generation. In a society that's so fucked up, people will inevitably turn to radical ideologies that blame all their troubles on external enemies.

    5. Re:We are winning! by DrJimbo · · Score: 2

      In a society that's so fucked up, people will inevitably turn to radical ideologies that blame all their troubles on external enemies.

      So true.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  6. Further Cowardice Encouragement by scarboni888 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or as Roger Waters put it: The Bravery of Being Out of Range.

    1. Re:Further Cowardice Encouragement by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Funny, the US Army would like nothing more than a straight-up fight in Afghanistan. And yet the enemy hides among civilians and blows up schools and churches. Where's the shaming for the enemy? Oh, that's right, you don't do that. Only Americans can be wrong.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!