backtop


Print 125 comment(s) - last by cajones.. on Feb 10 at 1:57 AM


Gene Simmons' Character in the movie "Runaway" had a gun which fired guided bullets  (Source: TriStar Pictures)
New design could reduce collateral damage, improve long range hits, and even potentially steer around obstacles

In the future U.S. military snipers might not have to worry about missing.

Engineering researchers at Sandia National Laboratories have developed a new "self guided" bullet capable of steering itself -- like a tiny, silent guided missile -- towards its target.

The task of creating the new "smart" bullet was a daunting one, and has occupied the researchers for three years now.  The inspiration for the project came from the stalled state of firearms development for the U.S. armed forces.  

I. The M2 -- 90+ Years, Not Much Improvement

The period stretching from 1915-1940 was a golden age for breakthroughs in firearms warfare.  One of the key figures of the era was John Moses Browning, heralded as the "father" of modern automatic firearms.

Towards the end of World War 1, Mr. Browning designed what would be one of his final great and terrible works -- the M2 Machine Gun (aka Browning .50 Caliber Machine Gun).  The M2 (not to be confused with the semi-automatic M2 carbine light rifle version) was a heavy machine gun.  It was typically mounted on a tripod or fixture, and belt-fed rounds.  The weapon quickly distinguished itself, proving a superb weapon against infantry, low-armor vehicles/boats, light fortifications, and low-flying aircraft.

Yet, Mr. Browning, for all his innovation, would likely be disappointed in the relative lack of progress in the industry since.  Over 90 years later the M2 has not yet been replaced, receiving only minor refinements over the years.  Today General Dynamics Corp.'s (GD) M2HB (a slightly improved modern version) is still used as the go-to heavy machine gun by U.S. soldiers deployed in Afghanistan.

M2 Browning
The M2 Browning, shown here mounted on a fighting vehicle, has been the U.S. military's go-to machine gun for over 90 years, first seeing action in WWII. [Image Source: Military Wikia]

The lack of improvement, it appears, is not for lack of creativity, but perhaps due to trying to solve the wrong problem.

The M2 is an extremely solid design from the perspective of barrel dynamics and maintenance.  However, it is limited by the skills of its operator.  That's where the Sandia researchers had their inspired flash of insight.  Perhaps rather than trying to improve the already very good gun -- whose shortcomings were largely the result of environmental conditions and operator skill level -- why not try to create a special high-tech bullet that corrects for these errors during its flight towards the target?

II. The "Smart Bullet"

The first step was to understand the problem, by creating advanced physics models, that took into effect possible sources of target misses, such as wind or operator hand shake.

Using this model, the engineers found that at a distance of 1,000 meters -- more than half a mile -- the M2 would often miss the target by as much as roughly 10 meters.  That was a big deal as 10 meters could easily be the difference between hitting a hostile combatant and hitting an unarmed civilian.

The next step was to develop a better performing solution.

To do this, researchers needed a way to help their "smart bullet" find its target.  To that end the researchers used a laser pointer and an optical sensor housed in the projectile to allow the projectile to determine its performance in-flight, in order to prepare necessary adjustments.  Unlike a projectile, a laser offers an instant vector line-of-sight in a gun, even at distance of miles away, and even in some kinds of harsh conditions, such as a strong wind.

The resulting 4-inch long, half-an-inch in diameter 0.50 caliber round takes the input of its microoptical sensor and feeds it into an 8-bit CPU, housed inside the shell. The CPU runs correction algorithms and outputs corrections 30 times a second, in the form of signals to electromagnetic actuators attached to small fins on the bullet.

Sandia bullet
The new patented Sandia smart bullet can correct its trajectory a 30 Hz rate.
[Image Source: Sandia National Labs]

The new bullet was somewhat different in form factor from a traditional design.  Where as a traditional barrel design has grooves (rifling) to help the round spin like a football pass in flight to improve accuracy, the smart bullet throws away the grooves, which would be incompatible with the adjustable fins.  Instead, the new design flies like a finned dart.  The key to stability in this kind of projectile is a stabilized forward center of gravity, which the researchers carefully achieved in the prototype.

III.  The Results

The resulting design, plugged into the original simulation model could hit within 8 inches of the lased spot on the target.  It was time to build the smart bullet.

Using off-the-shelf parts, the engineers created and successfully field-tested prototypes.  Over three years and a million dollars in research funding later, the team had their smart bullet in hand.  

To assess the performance, the team first verified that the barrel exit velocity was combat-ready.  A standard M2 has a barrel exit velocity of 2,910 ft/s (890 m/s) for M33 ball.  The finned smart shell achieved a speed of 2,400 ft/s (732 m/s), or roughly Mach 2.1.  This was a healthy speed for a standard cylindrical belt-fed shell.

Next the researchers wanted to ensure that the microelectronics would survive the flight.  So they fired bullet with a small LED attached for identification purposes.  The LED round was found during nighttime testing and the battery and internal electronics were shown to have survived the flight.

Sandia night tests
The smart bullet survived its high-speed flight, with systems intact.
[Image Source: Sandia National Lab]

Finally, the team took high-speed pictures of the bullet in flight as it exited the barrel and flew a short distance.  This showed how standard bullets -- and the new smart bullet -- pitched (tilted up and down) more violently as they exited the barrel, before finally settling into a straight path.  This pitching was a major source of missing, but with the laser guided correction fins, could be remedied. 

Sandia posted a video of the bullet in flight, though the "violent" pitching (in terms of accuracy) is hard to distinguish by the visible eye:


States Red Jones one of Sandia's engineers on the project in an Associated Press interview, "Everybody thought it was too difficult to make things small enough. We knew we could deal with that. The other thing was it was going to be too complicated and expensive.  We came up with an innovative way around that to make it stupid and cheap and still pretty good."

He credits the ability to deliver a terrific result on a trim budget to the wonders of modern microelectronics, stating, "In the laboratory, I'm able to make machines so incredibly small it kind of boggles my mind.  Where we're headed, we're going to be limited only by our imagination."

The team did not post targeting results of how the bullet performed on real-world targets yet, but they obtained a patent on their work based on computer simulations and the supporting real-world muzzle velocity, pitching visualization, and survival tests.

IV. Moving Toward Combat Readiness

Sandia engineers now hope to take the patented design and create a second-generation prototype, by collaborating with partners in the private sector.  The first generation prototype's electronics were only hardened to survive the flight motion, where as a second-gen. design's electronics would need to be hardened for more intense real-world scenarios, such as being dropped out of a moving truck.

By ditching the inertial guidance unit of guided missiles and replacing it with the laser guidance system, the engineers have created a bullet that -- with a bit of work -- can act as a guided missile at a fraction of the cost of a standard guided missile.  States Mr. Jones, "What we want to do is make it cheap enough to make it cost effective for the military to use in a machine gun.  It's not going to be millions of dollars, but it's not going to be a buck a piece either."

Adam Firestone, an Army veteran, instructor and a weapons system engineer was among those very interested in the design.  In an Associated Press interview he commented, "All of a sudden now you've got a way to eliminate the collateral damage issues. From that perspective, this starts to get interesting."

It could get far more interesting yet in the near future.

While the current testing has focused on gun-lased targets, lasing could also be accomplished from one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).  Using multiple small UAVs and pre-flight range-finding information, a bullet's targeting algorithms could correct around a lased obstacle (say a tree), and be strung around to the next lased target, like a real life version of Wanted (the comic book, of course, not the horrible movie version).

Wanted
With a bit of extra work, the guided bullet technology could be used to curve bullets in a string of waypoints, similar to the supervillain drama Wanted
[Image Source: Mark Millar/Top Cow Productions]

Curving bullets would certain give the good old fashioned powder firearm a bit of extra life, as would the improved round accuracy.  To that end, even as the military sector looks forward to the potentially upcoming age of high-powered laser-weapon warfare [1][2][3], good old-fashioned combustion-based projectile weapons have a bit of growth left in them, thanks to microelectronics.

Recently other work has been done on "smart bullets" to preprogram them to explode before or after a target, in order to damage targets behind cover.  These advancements could in theory be combined a in a single future super-round.

Sources: Sandia [Press Release], Associated Press



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Limited use
By dani31 on 2/3/2012 2:46:07 PM , Rating: 1
For most situations I believe it's going to be more efficient to train good and take the risk of a conventional bullet than to shoot micro computers at the enemy for a simple reason - cost.




RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 3:00:29 PM , Rating: 4
When did the military every consider cost in the equation?

The only way that could happen is if Ron Paul wins.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 3:08:05 PM , Rating: 1
The Military doesn't dictate what it's own budget is, Yash.

Sigh, I don't know why I bother.


RE: Limited use
By adiposity on 2/3/2012 4:07:56 PM , Rating: 4
I think what he was saying, as long as they have astronomical budgets, they will spend it.

Sure, they don't set the budget, but a high budget doesn't encourage them to save costs, either.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Limited use
By FaaR on 2/4/2012 9:31:34 AM , Rating: 2
It sure is astronomical, compared to every other nation on planet Earth (many multiple times the next highest spending nation.) Don't be more ludicrous than you absolutely have to, Reclaimer. You're enough of a ridiculous right-winger shill as it is.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Limited use
By Solandri on 2/4/2012 2:08:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It sure is astronomical, compared to every other nation on planet Earth (many multiple times the next highest spending nation.)

That's a mistaken conclusion people frequently make. It completely ignores population and regional cost of goods and services. If I have a family of 5, of course my food budget is going to be bigger than a single bachelor's. Likewise, if I live in New York City, of course my food expense per family member is going to be higher than someone living in rural Pakistan.

So you have to account for population and purchasing price parity in order to make a like-for-like comparison. Dividing expenditure by GDP accomplishes this. As a percent of GDP, U.S. military spending is not the highest in the world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_per_of_g...

Newer figures here, although they don't list as many countries.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD...

It drops even lower if you add Japan's GDP. (The peace treaty ending WWII to prohibits Japan from having armed forces which can operate outside of Japan. The U.S. is obligated to provide all of Japan's international defense.) Then there's NATO, which allows many European countries to lower their defense budget by allying with the U.S. Once you normalize for all this, U.S. military spending is far from the top, and only about 50% higher than the world average.


RE: Limited use
By Paj on 2/6/2012 7:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
However, the US is the richest single country in the world, and the third most populous nation in the world. The countries that spend more USD/GDP generally have much smaller populations than the US, and are often far poorer to boot, hence the % of GDP is far higher.

For example, Eritrea spends 20% of its GDP on defense, yet only has 7 million people.

China has 4 times the population of the US, yet spends one sixth of the US military budget.


RE: Limited use
By MZperX on 2/7/2012 12:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
Which should have clued you in that a comparison based on population is rather meaningless.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 4:12:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think what he was saying, as long as they have astronomical budgets, they will spend it.

Thank your for actually having some synaptic activity.

quote:
I think....

What a concept!


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 4:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
So according to you 100% of all government is 100% wasteful except for 100% of the military.

You could not have done a better job at being an extremist if you had tried.

Just like you 100% ignore me? Troll.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 4:28:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right I clearly said 100% of all government spending is wasteful lol


You imply as much but don't let that stop you from moving the goalposts.

quote:
But Liberals like you view ALL military spending as a waste.


Duh again X2, since YOU said liberal (which I don't vote) and I never said ALL military spending is a waste. But as the DT head extremist your can't help but to bounce off of one wall and into the other.

quote:
I'm not 12,

It'd be great to put that to a vote.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 4:49:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Anyway this is my fault...

S.O.P.

quote:
... for first stepping into your deadly snake-trap of stupid.

LOL, my comments weren't even responding to you, but then you always did flatter yourself.

quote:
... I do it every time...

Also S.O.P.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 4:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was just another cheap liberal dig

And what would you label what you do when you call everyone that disagrees with you an idiot? Adult logic?

My, but those goalposts they do tend to move all over the place, don't they?


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 5:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tactical analysis.


Yeah, on "The Dukes of Hazzard."


RE: Limited use
By fortiori on 2/3/2012 8:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
This comment shoots right past naive and delusional and lands directly in batshit insane territory.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Limited use
By fortiori on 2/4/2012 10:52:21 AM , Rating: 3
Appeal to motive, straw man, red herring, circular reasoning, slippery slope, and ad hominem all in fell swoop. Impressive.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/4/2012 2:47:49 PM , Rating: 1
The flair for the dramatic does seem to drive everything else.


RE: Limited use
By ebakke on 2/6/2012 1:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our military doesn't waste money. Period.
And this, my friend, is where you completely jumped the shark.

Waste is everywhere. I'll be first in line to say a government's number one purpose is the defense of its citizens. So naturally I'll defend expenditures (and as a result, taxation) by the government to accomplish that goal. However, I would never claim that legitimate functions of government are without waste. There's always someone milking the system, someone looking out for their own self interests, someone getting paid to do twice the work they're actually doing, etc.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 2:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
You aren't describing waste, that's corruption.

If by waste you mean inefficiencies, then yes I agree. Nothing government run is ever terribly efficient. However military spending is one of the true beneficial uses of government spending because it produces actual products and goods.

But keep my statement in context. Yash is a chronic anti-military Liberal. When he talks about "waste", he frankly means the military in general is a waste. He even made some crack about "$10,000 Halliburton hammers" or some such idiocy. Who does that?

Our military is one of the most closely watched branches by government oversight. Especially by Democrats who seemingly bemoan every penny spent on it. If the rest of our government was hawked as well by penny pinchers and watchdogs, we'd all be in better shape.

I don't believe our military is wasteful. And it's going to take a lot more than faceless people over the Internet to change that.


RE: Limited use
By ebakke on 2/6/2012 3:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You aren't describing waste, that's corruption. If by waste you mean inefficiencies, then yes I agree.
I'm not describing corruption, but I most certainly am referring to inefficiencies. Inefficiency is waste. Waste is inefficient. If you perform an action so poorly that it costs you twice as much money or twice as much time, that's wasteful.
quote:
However military spending is one of the true beneficial uses of government spending because it produces actual products and goods.
I disagree with that logic. That would mean that farm subsidies are true beneficial uses of government spending because it produces goods. Or solar panel subsidies. The list goes on and on. Again I contend that just because the original justification for the expenditure is a legitimate function of government doesn't mean all expenditures for that purpose are legitimate, worthwhile, and non-wasteful.
quote:
I don't believe our military is wasteful. And it's going to take a lot more than faceless people over the Internet to change that.
6 months working for a DoD contractor should change your mind pretty quickly. And if it doesn't, you're either blind to your surroundings, or are cheering so vehemently for your team that you refuse to accept the truth.


RE: Limited use
By ebakke on 2/6/2012 4:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
As a quick follow up - the procurement system alone is an enormous source of wasted tax dollars.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 5:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you perform an action so poorly that it costs you twice as much money or twice as much time, that's wasteful.


Twice as much as compared to what? In order to make that assessment, we need to have a comparative example or sample group. We have none. When you see someone else building a F-22 or F-35 for less, then you can say "I told you so".

quote:
Again I contend that just because the original justification for the expenditure is a legitimate function of government doesn't mean all expenditures for that purpose are legitimate, worthwhile, and non-wasteful.


And I wouldn't argue with such a statement. I'm not. Of course you aren't trying to be an inflammatory troll like Yash was.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 5:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course you aren't trying to be an inflammatory troll like Yash was

Ah, Captain Objectivity of the Apple articles has spoken.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 5:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
So you troll our military, and I troll Apple. Fair enough. See a huge disconnect there?


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/7/2012 11:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
SO you admit trolling Apple? It always seemed to be more of your "tactical analysis." Perhaps the two are synonyms in your book.


RE: Limited use
By ebakke on 2/7/2012 10:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Twice as much as compared to what? In order to make that assessment, we need to have a comparative example or sample group. We have none. When you see someone else building a F-22 or F-35 for less, then you can say "I told you so".
Fair enough. I don't have any empirical evidence to support my argument, and I don't have an alternative universe machine to try out different scenarios. So I'll concede that I can't prove much.

All I have to go on is my experience working as a DoD/DoE contractor. But the number of people employed who didn't give a hoot about the projects and were just riding it out to retirement was astounding. Or the time, energy, and money wasted in trying to build a product with engineers that quite simply did not have the technical skills necessary to do the job. And as I've briefly mentioned in other posts, the procurement process is straight up f'ed. That alone is wasting billions every year.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 4:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he frankly means the military in general is a waste

You couldn't even interpret my initial statement correctly, what makes you believe you can here? Extremist assumptions are the backbone of all your arguments. If you're ancestors would have lived in Salem MA centuries ago they would have burned down the entire town, not just some witches. I'd love to see your shrine of Joseph McCarthy.

quote:
He even made some crack about "$10,000 Halliburton hammers" or some such idiocy.

No I didn't, that's you putting 1 & 1 together and coming up with your usual nationalist outcry. You'd think if you actually had some credibility you could quote correctly and not continue to use the Moonies for citation purposes.

quote:
I don't believe our military is wasteful.

A Faux fact. No person with any understanding of economics or capitalism would support no bid contracts. Ask them why.

quote:
Yash is a chronic anti-military Liberal

Actually I would have fined any military supplier who left troops not fully equipped, ie lack of body armor. You can bet if it was going to cost them money there never would have been such shortages. Instead all we heard was "Shortages are SOP." Why? A real supporter of the military would not accept such excuses.

quote:
Our military is one of the most closely watched branches by government oversight.

Yes it is, but probably because Congressmen are allowed to legally profit from insider trading, not because of some sudden lust for efficiency. Of course like your other extremist stances all of government couldn't possibly be efficient at all, while the military is 100% efficient.

The people here should be allowed to vote. Which one are you? This one?

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

or this one?

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


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 4:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
Bla bla bla Yash, bla bla. Fox news, extremism, the whole deal. You're pure comedy. I especially like the part about my ancestors, as if that makes ANY sense or "extremism" is genetically passed down from one's ancestors hahaha.

quote:
Yes it is, but probably because Congressmen are allowed to legally profit from insider trading,


Insider trading is actually illegal. Clearly you have such a good grasp on things. Just because it's widespread and commonly known, doesn't make it legal.

quote:
Actually I would have fined any military supplier who left troops not fully equipped, ie lack of body armor. A real supporter of the military would not accept such excuses.


Red Herring much? You can't simply throw some example at me that wasn't even in the discussion and outright assume I'm accepting it by default, without any opinion from me given. Hello? And I'm an extremist! What the hell did we get on specific examples of military shortages? I must have missed that part of the convo.

Stop being an ass. What started this whole thing was you making a cynical and off-base dig at our military. Stop calling others "extremists" and just own what you were doing. Own it Yash.

Instead of discussing this bullet or the technology behind it, you had to pull your little extremist drive-by bullcrap. You just couldn't help yourself, you had to make a political statement. Don't call others extremist, just go look in the mirror.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 5:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Insider trading is actually illegal. Clearly you have such a good grasp on things. Just because it's widespread and commonly known, doesn't make it legal.


Really?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011...


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 5:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, really. From that same site

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2...

Can you even read? The two bills circling Congress currently are Congressional bans on insider trading. In other words, it's an enforcement issue. They aren't passing legislation that makes insider trading illegal. It always was!


RE: Limited use
By ebakke on 2/6/2012 5:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
He even made some crack about "$10,000 Halliburton hammers" or some such idiocy.
-----
No I didn't, that's you putting 1 & 1 together and coming up with your usual nationalist outcry. You'd think if you actually had some credibility you could quote correctly and not continue to use the Moonies for citation purposes.


Might I remind you of this little gem, Yash...
quote:
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 8:19:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
$1.66 million per full-time employee
-----
Just enough for each employee to buy 1 hammer and 1 toilet from a military supplier like Hallburton.

Are you saying the toilet cost $1,650,001 or more?


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 5:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
LOL thank you. But of course I'm such an "extremist" I made the whole thing up in my head apparently.

I actually did get it wrong a bit. A $10,000 hammer would have been far less extreme than his stupid comment. He's not even on planet Earth.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 5:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you saying the toilet cost $1,650,001 or more?

That was clearly a mistake, for that kind of money one gets a hammer and a toilet seat, not a whole toilet.

And yes we know now Halliburton is not a military supplier, but given their history of fines and overcharges they may as well be.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 5:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yes we know now Halliburton is not a military supplier, but given their history of fines and overcharges they may as well be.


Wait, what? And you dare call me a "Faux" extremist? You go on a megalomaniacal rant about military spending, citing Halliburton several times as an example. When others point out they are NOT military contractors, you come back with this? Who's "we"? Because "we" always knew that! YOU didn't. Because you're crazy and make crap up.

You seriously owe me an apology. Because you're insane, and everything you said about me actually applies to you. So when reality doesn't work for you, it "should" be a certain way? LOL.. I love it.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 11:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seriously owe me an apology.

Absolutely, just as soon as you do the same with every person whom you've called an idiot because of your highly developed Y-E-E-H-A-W diplomacy.

I suggest you try to find some global census info, as US census info will be totally inadequate.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2012 8:39:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nice deflection. I'm just supposed to forget you created an entire argument out of Halliburton, which isn't even a military contractor. And when called out, you just go "well they might as well be."

But I'm the Faux extremist who makes stuff up lol.


RE: Limited use
By Solandri on 2/3/2012 6:08:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think what he was saying, as long as they have astronomical budgets, they will spend it.

2010 DoD budget (including overseas contingency): $663.7 billion
2010 Active duty personnel: ~1.4 million
DoD spending per employee: $474,100

http://14clicks.com/average-employee-costs/
Private sector industry average cost per employee: $412,400
$40,000 - McDonalds
$203,000 - Disney
$420,000 - GE
$495,000 - Proctor & Gamble
$720,000 - Google
$1,230,000 - Apple

http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/
Number of non-DoD Federal employees: 2.23 million, 1.84 million full-time
2010 Total Federal budget minus DoD: $3.057 trillion

Non-DoD Federal spending per employee:
$1.37 million per employee
$1.66 million per full-time employee


RE: Limited use
By Solandri on 2/3/2012 6:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Private sector industry average cost per employee: $412,400

I should clarify that's the average for the 20 biggest companies.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 8:19:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
$1.66 million per full-time employee

Just enough for each employee to buy 1 hammer and 1 toilet from a military supplier like Hallburton.


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/4/2012 12:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
But quite a few more solar panels from Solyndra. No? Or maybe it'd be enough to buy a couple thousand assault rifles for the Mexican drug cartels.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 12:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta love how Libtards still bring up Halliburton or Iran Contra, but NOBODY talks about operation "Fast and Furious".


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/4/2012 5:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
I know a republican who still brings up the Bay of Pigs. What cutesy name do you have for him?


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/9/2012 2:18:46 AM , Rating: 2
Wahh. It's Busch's fault. Of course, maybe you'd do us all a favor and stop with the Democrat Kool-Aid, and try something a bit more manly, like Anheuser Busch.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/4/2012 2:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But quite a few more solar panels from Solyndra. No?

Feel free to post some numbers so you can understand the immensity of each problem. Make sure you leave enough room for all the extra digits Halliburton will require.

This from a conservative source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123296483128515063...

Under the current administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/judge-bp-co...

A general timeline:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/nigeria_...


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 3:08:36 PM , Rating: 1
A settlement isn't proof of guilt. It's simply done when a party has decided that it's easier to pay someone than to go to court. If the Nigerians felt truly wronged, they could have chose honor over extortion.

Anyway whining about Halliburton wore out it's welcome when Bush was in office. It's not coming back into style no matter how much you libs want it to.

LOL and you accuse me of using biased sources? "Halliburton Watch" is a completely unapologetic conspiracy theory rag!

Neither one of these sources actually proves your case, in any event. You seem more concerned about smearing Halliburton than making a point. Solyndra was a true travesty. At least Halliburton provides services. What did Solyndra get us?


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/4/2012 4:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A settlement isn't proof of guilt.

Clearly it's just an attempt to, "spread the wealth."

quote:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/dwightd...


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 5:10:10 PM , Rating: 1
Look Yash, you know that "military industrial" crap got old in the 90's, right?

What's your next fresh approach, Vietnam War protesting?

Nice of you to find some solitary with a Republican though. Too bad it's Eisenhower, a Liberal anti-military extremist. And a horrible President on domestic policy. Continuing the unquestioned failure of the "New Deal" put us in a hole we still haven't, and probably never will, dig ourselves out of.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/4/2012 5:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Your "LA LA LA I can't hear you" tactics don't influence me. Eisenhower told the truth, deal with it.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 5:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
Throwing out historic quotes when a decent argument hasn't even been made is the mark of a loser.

Halliburton is one of the worlds largest oilfield service companies. What in the HELL do they have to do with Eisenhower's quote or the "IMC"? They win contracts because they're usually the largest, most capable company able to get the job done. It's not a conspiracy. God you're such an idiot.

At least if you had used Blackwater for your Liberal conspiracy retardation, you would have been on the same page. Still wrong, but at least in the same area.


RE: Limited use
By cajones on 2/10/2012 1:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
Are you being sarcastic? Eisenhower was nominated by the Republican party for the presidency and he ran as a Republican. He went to West Point, spent a large part of his life in the military and ended up as a 5 star general in World War 2.

If anyone was in a position to see how the system really worked, it would be him. But because he said something you don't like, that automatically makes him a liberal, anti-military extremist despite all history to the contrary.


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/4/2012 3:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
I ought to simply respond, "IBF" and leave it at that. Or perhaps ignore you. But:

1) Have you ever done business in Nigeria?

2) Do you consider our "Fast and Furious" DOJ to be a-political?

3) http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Corruption-Cheats-Cr...

4) Immensity is relative, like a waste-line. And I won't even start on how Michele gets $10B for her pet obesity program.

5) ACORN.

6) right back atcha -- make sure you leave enough room for all the extra digits Obama will require. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/nation...


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/4/2012 5:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
You simply make the point I've been saying long term. Both parties are the 2 sides of the same corrupt coin. Articulate thinking people realize this, nationalists absolutely refuse the logic via premeditated ignorance and a large dose of propaganda.

Oh, waist-line. Just a heads up.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 5:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both parties are the 2 sides of the same corrupt coin.


Please, you don't believe that. Don't insult our intelligence. If you thought "both" parties were at fault, you wouldn't dedicate ALL your time to defending Democrats and attacking any poster who's the slightest bit right-leaning.


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/5/2012 12:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both parties are the 2 sides of the same corrupt coin.
Ahh, so now it's corruption. First we start w/ IBF and now we hide behind "articulate thinking people ..." xenophobic nonsense. Ever the asinine personal attack with you.

Answer me this, if corruption is such a problem then why do you have so many gov't-based solutions? Why, when thoughts are expressed to reduce gov't, are you down on that? Your position is inconsistent, Bud.
quote:
Oh, waist-line. Just a heads up.
Are you being opaque or do you have a point?


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 5:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Answer me this, if corruption is such a problem then why do you have so many gov't-based solutions? Why, when thoughts are expressed to reduce gov't, are you down on that? Your position is inconsistent, Bud.

Others have routinely made it clear that everything except the military is a total waste. And I'm inconsistent?

I'd love for corporate welfare to disappear as fast as you want people welfare to disappear, but you fail to understand where this country is headed.

quote:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini

We still pay people to not grow food, why not show us how much money those people make and why? And even better who gets most of their political contributions? Or are you uncomfortable with that?

Really, the only smaller government you want is the kind where BP would have cut a bunch of corners drilling in the gulf, gotten a dozen people killed, and they would not have broken any laws in the first place. That's your version of smaller business.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 5:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Others have routinely made it clear that everything except the military is a total waste.


No. No others have said that. NOBODY has said that. You're projecting. Not even I have said ALL government spending is a "total" waste.

quote:
Really, the only smaller government you want is the kind where BP would have cut a bunch of corners drilling in the gulf, gotten a dozen people killed, and they would not have broken any laws in the first place. That's your version of smaller business.


These are the words of a crazy person. Seriously, you're completely unhinged. Smaller government leads to more oil spills and corner cutting? And we actually WANT this to happen? You're nuts! There is such a massive disconnect there.

By the way, Mussolini was a Dictator. And his rise to power could not happen here no matter how much corporate welfare took place. You seem to be confused about actual fascism, let me help you out.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/obamas_fasc...


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/9/2012 7:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Others have routinely made it clear that everything except the military is a total waste. And I'm inconsistent?
Yes. Emphatically inconsistent. You went wrong with your very first word. I'm not "others". Since you like to look at my post history so much, tell me where I have EVER said anything like you claim. I'll wait.
quote:
I'd love for corporate welfare to disappear as fast as you want people welfare to disappear
In general, I'm against "people welfare", and prefer work-fare. I'm against hand-outs, though try not to confuse that with being FOR lending a helping-hand.
quote:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Proof that you are a troll. You are pulling in quotes from other people and attributing them to me. What a nut job. Maybe I ought to have my alter-ego finish the rest of this conversation, er, dialogue [since a conversation takes two people and I think you'd actually agree you no longer count].
quote:
We still pay people to not grow food, why not show us how much money those people make and why? And even better who gets most of their political contributions? Or are you uncomfortable with that?
Show us your own work. So far, you're doing a piss-poor job.

Who is "we"? Who is "their"? Are you trying to say that 'The gov't still pays people to not grow food'? If so, then that is the point I'm trying to convey. Gov't is the problem. Less gov't means less of the problems you mention. What is wrong with that? Of course, I must harken back to the Founders and argue for an informed and moral electorate. A people who have some familiarity with the Decalogue and believe that murder is still wrong. Now THAT is my version.


RE: Limited use
By rlandess on 2/6/2012 11:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Articulate thinking people realize this, nationalists absolutely refuse the logic via premeditated ignorance and a large dose of propaganda.


I think we agree here profoundly.

Except I think the problem isn't nationalists but wing-nuts. People are so blinded by the propaganda and empty rhetoric that they are unwilling to question and revise their beliefs based on logic. They've built a massive defensive wall against reality.

Be you far left or far right, either way you can just STFU. You're too blinded by rhetoric to have a real conversation with.

Maybe not every politician is corrupt, but I agree that as a whole both the parties are corrupt. They may not be consciously corrupt but the abilities to lead, legislate and think have been completely destroyed by partisan infighting.

The article though. Is it just me or is it weird to design a machine gun with smart ammo? What's the situation where you need to fire 800 rounds a minute with high accuracy into one 8" area? It seems like this makes more sense combined with a targeting system to be able to acquire multiple targets and rapidly deploy munitions to each target.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 5:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Be you far left or far right, either way you can just STFU.

Yep, and if there were any idiots here that said Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread I'd poke holes in their Swiss cheese logic as well, but Captain Tantrum doesn't seem to realize that those types don't visit here much.

quote:
They've built a massive defensive wall against reality.

Yeah, the Faux wall.


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/9/2012 3:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think we agree here profoundly.
BS.
quote:
What's the situation where you need to fire 800 rounds a minute with high accuracy into one 8" area? It seems like this makes more sense combined with a targeting system to be able to acquire multiple targets and rapidly deploy munitions to each target.
And you consider "rapidly deploy" to be what? 1 round every couple seconds? No. But if it's 800 rpm then you can put a couple here and a couple there "rapidly". Thimk, what situation is the weapon going to be used in? Anti-personnel? hmm, maybe not. Anti-tank? Hmm. Ground-to-air? Interesting, but what about range? Air-to-ground? Air-to-air? Etc.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 5:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or perhaps ignore you.


That's usually the best option when it comes to Yash. It's not just that he's always on the wrong side. But I get the feeling that his entire presence here is one big troll.


RE: Limited use
By Mint on 2/4/2012 11:36:56 AM , Rating: 1
That last part is just stupid. Why on earth would you include tranfer payments to others (SS, medicare, welfare, unemployment, subsidies, etc) as "costs per employee"?

Maybe you were making a joke, but government salaries are by far the most overexaggerated part of spending that people bitch about. The total federal payroll is currently under $200B per year, which makes it a pretty fruitless place to focus on for budget cuts.

You could cut everyone's salary in half, and you'd only knock off 3% of the budget . Meanwhile, you'd also ripple down lower wages throughout the private sector for middle-class employees, thus hammering consumer spending in the process.

It's as dumb as the liberal rants on CEO pay. Yeah, the wealth gap is a problem, but why focus on CEOs? The richest CEO's take home well under 1% of their companies' total costs.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 11:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
Because it's class warfare rhetoric. Liberal policies bring everyone down, but they can't come out and say that. So instead they pull the "vote for me, and I'll punish that rich guy." While that might make some people feel better, the disconnect comes in where that actually ends up improving others lives or the economy at large. It doesn't.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of it all. The same people railing against CEO pay are in the top "1%" themselves.


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/4/2012 12:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The total federal payroll is currently under $200B per year, which makes it a pretty fruitless place to focus on for budget cuts.
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money" -- attributed to Dirksen


RE: Limited use
By Solandri on 2/4/2012 1:48:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That last part is just stupid. Why on earth would you include tranfer payments to others (SS, medicare, welfare, unemployment, subsidies, etc) as "costs per employee"?

I thought about that before including it. By my standards, I would not have included it. But by the standards of those who think the military budget is astronomical, it should be included.

I believe the military industrial complex is being paid for legitimate goods and services, and so there is no comparison to the transfer payments you cite. They OTOH believe the MIC is getting corporate handouts from government, and so it's comparable to transfer payments.

quote:
Maybe you were making a joke, but government salaries are by far the most overexaggerated part of spending that people bitch about.

I never said anything about payroll. It's cost per employee.


RE: Limited use
By invidious on 2/6/2012 4:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
The US was actually only 10th in military spending per GDP in 2010. So the idea what we are in some way out of proportion is just wrong. Also our role of world police requires the spending, regardless of wether or not you think that role is justified.

Country______________total spending___%GDP
Eritrea_________________469,000,000___20.9%
Saudi Arabia__________42,917,000,000___11.2%
Oman________________4,047,000,000____9.7%
United Arab Emirates___15,749,000,000____7.3%
Israel_______________13,001,000,000____6.3%
Chad__________________242,000,000____6.2%
Jordan_______________1,363,000,000____6.1%
Georgia________________452,000,000____5.6%
Iraq_________________4,663,000,000____5.4%
United States________687,105,000,000____4.7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2012 5:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Amazing. Facts and figures!

So we're paying 10'th in the world, and have unquestioned the greatest, most capable, best trained military IN the world.

I guess in wacko-land that's an "astronomical" military budget, all things considered.


RE: Limited use
By ebakke on 2/6/2012 6:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well, to be fair Reclaimer, $687B is a pretty damn large number. Even if it's a relatively small percentage of GDP. No matter how you slice it, it's still a lot of money taken from you and I to fund the military.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 11:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're like the only person he hasn't called an idiot today. It seems you don't enjoy being singled out.


RE: Limited use
By ebakke on 2/7/2012 10:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
It might have something to do with the fact that I try to articulate my points without inflaming everyone else. Or that I'm willing to listen to someone else's view, and admit when I'm wrong.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2012 8:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely ebakke. And a rational discussion about how things could be done better would not be amiss. Even though it wouldn't change much. I think there's too much partisan anti-military hate going on for that to happen though.

But there's nothing constructive about people making wild claims and outright lies about our military spending, with no context at all about the realities and unique challenges our armed forces face and our U.N obligations etc etc.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/3/2012 4:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sigh, I don't know why I bother.

LOL, The reclaimer version of ignore continues.....


RE: Limited use
By S3anister on 2/5/2012 9:53:25 PM , Rating: 3
I haven't signed-in to DT for a long time because of how much it blows compared to what it used to be (before the age of shitty bloggers).

To let you know, you come off ill-informed, biased, and incompetent. Please don't post. There are enough downies on DT already.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 11:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
3 guesses where the other end of S3's thread line goes to, and the first 2 don't count.


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/4/2012 2:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did the military every consider cost in the equation?
mmm? I suppose "the military" overspent on armoring Humvee's? or providing body-armor to soldiers?

Let me put it this way, when did Obama ever consider cost in the equation? Oh, wait! Let me guess ... IBF. [yep, it's-Bush's-fault, wahhhh]


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 11:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Decades after WWII it's still Hitler's fault.

4-5 Years of the Wall St debacle it's still their fault.

So yeah, time doesn't alter who's fault it was.

Simply physics, take a lesson, learn something. Classes are available in your area.

quote:
Let me put it this way, when did Obama ever consider cost in the equation?

Non-sequitur, Bush #3 is no different than Bush #2. And don't expect anything different from Bush #4 either. But hey, bang that partisan gong all day long, because participating in the 2 party dictatorship doesn't have any other rewards.

quote:
... wahhhh.....

Sounds like you're trying to contribute to trickle down economics. Leaky diapers always trickle down.


RE: Limited use
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2012 8:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and there's nothing "partisan" at all about calling every President a "Bush" lol

Obama isn't Bush #3, he's Carter #2. Woohoo this game sure is fun, and mature.


RE: Limited use
By YashBudini on 2/7/2012 11:05:41 AM , Rating: 2
It was already known you could not comprehend the similarities of the last 2 presidents, there was no dire need to publicize your ignorance.


RE: Limited use
By ekv on 2/9/2012 2:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yep, and if there were any idiots here that said Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread I'd poke holes in their Swiss cheese logic as well, but Captain Tantrum doesn't seem to realize that those types don't visit here much.
You're a legend, in your own mind at least, for Obama-supporting swiss cheese logic. A regular paragon of balanced reporting / posting.
quote:
So yeah, time doesn't alter who's fault it was.
Having a bad day? Or perhaps just bored with nothing better to do, except maybe pat yourself on the back. Put a few more people down so you can use them as a rung on the ladder your climbing.

You didn't even stop to think "who's fault" WHAT was? Look, if you want to set up a straw-man and knock it down, that's your business -- Google Analytics and all. Ascribing all of life's troubles and worries to a whipping-boy is scandalous. Do you think you'll ever be the scape-goat? Of course, in your system, maybe PERIODicity isn't a factor....
quote:
But hey, bang that partisan gong all day long, because participating in the 2 party dictatorship doesn't have any other rewards.
Partisan gong? I'm a conservative.

For you to say this indicates your complete unawareness of reality. The TEA party has been highly effective in pushing reform(s). And you call this "non-sequitur"? Like that is some magic silver-bullet to reduce your little problems to manageable bites.
quote:
Sounds like you're trying to contribute to trickle down economics
I'm not alone in raving at the lunacy of gov't spending out of control. Democrats and Independents side with me. Obama'nomics has not worked and won't. And when it doesn't you, yes YOU, resort to calling it "trickle down economics". I suppose you took a correspondence-course from The Economist in Keynesian Theory to learn that.

I'll give you the last word.


RE: Limited use
By jRaskell on 2/3/2012 4:24:08 PM , Rating: 3
Weapons skill can, to a degree, be trained with LOTS of practice under expert guidance. IE firing LOTS of rounds with an instructor pointing out and correcting your mistakes. Most people will only ever be capable of becoming acceptably proficient with a firearm though. Only a small percentage of people have the innate talent to become an expert shot (and still only with LOTS of practice).

This technology could possibly allow a meagerly trained combatant to make shots that only an expert sniper would be capable of with a modern weapon, perhaps make shots even an expert sniper would not be able to regularly make.

Field testing will dictate what the technology is truly capable of. I can see both laser-guided solutions as well as entirely self-contained stabilized only solutions, depending on the operating conditions (the latter being useful in less ideal conditions, providing a more stable and consistent bullet trajectory than conventional rifled rounds)


RE: Limited use
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2012 5:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
The article fails to mention that the 50cal machine gun has already been replaced by the mini gun wherever its practical to do so.


Neat
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2012 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 4
Don't forget though that the browning was used extensively in our WW 2 aircraft. Imagine what it would have been like had we possessed this technology then... Those Run-90's (sorry, FW 190's) and their 20 mm Cannons wouldn't have been so fearless.

I worry though... I worry that at some point we might become "too" reliant on smart technology for our weaponry. The dumber you keep things, in a way, the more foolproof they are.

For instance, say you take an army of men and wrap them up in tinfoil suits. No, they aren't trying to protect themselves from microwave or laser beams, but instead, to reflect the guidance laser off of them--bullett defeated, possibly. It all depends on the g-tolerances of the fins and their capacity to alter course.

Or, what if the infantry used a smokescreen to divert the laser energy. While that might seem silly, tanks already are outfitted with smoke dispensers to help ward off helocopter attacks and other oddities that might be hurled their ways. In return, the infantry themselves are fitted with special-wavelength optics allowing them to see through it and fire back with their... dumb weapons.

So, my point is not to poo poo this outright. No, I love this sort of stuff. I just hope, however, the forces in command (and I'm sure they're smart enough) keep some 'ole fashioned dumb rounds in their satchels for when the enemy gets to smart for even this enlightened technology.




RE: Neat
By CarbonJoe on 2/3/2012 2:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
They could be used like tracer rounds are now. Every n-th round is a smart bullet (or, conversely, a dumb bullet).


RE: Neat
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2012 2:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure the barrels are compatible with both types of ammunition. The article said that the new round is not compatible with rifling--which due to the poor wording you might not have picked this up. Bullets are not rifled, the barrels are which initiate the spin on the round causing the coating to appear to be "rifled" after they are fired due to the barrels interaction with it at firing.


RE: Neat
By lagomorpha on 2/3/2012 3:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
Did the rifled barrel in the original M1 Abrams also have grooves to prevent HEAT rounds from spinning? If so I don't see why a similar system couldn't be made to create a hybrid barrel capable of firing conventional ammunition as well as fin stabilized ammunition.


RE: Neat
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2012 3:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
The M1A1 Abrams tank uses a smooth bore, 120 mm barrel. The original did use a rifled barrel but was traded in for the 120 to get more range and power. In place of the rifling, the smooth-bore tanks use a sabot encasement system to compensate.


RE: Neat
By lagomorpha on 2/5/2012 12:07:14 AM , Rating: 2
That doesn't really answer the question. Rifling is fine for the conventional rounds from the 105mm rifled gun the original M1 Abrams used, but spinning HEAT rounds are less effective. Was there some kind of system that prevented those from spinning when they were employed with the 105mm rifle?


RE: Neat
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 3:18:35 PM , Rating: 1
Yes it's "neat". But if we're talking about super accurate high tech firearms, I rather have a man-portable rail gun than gimmick bullets.

quote:
I worry though... I worry that at some point we might become "too" reliant on smart technology for our weaponry. The dumber you keep things, in a way, the more foolproof they are.


Case in point; M16 vs. AK-47

The M16 was clearly the more advanced firearm. However in actual combat and deployment, technology doesn't always win out. An AK-47 can be left leaning up against a tree, cocked, for months and still fire. You can fill the receiver full of mud, literally, and it will cock and fire on the first try. Hell the damn thing could even fire, and cycle, underwater! It was cheap and simple to operate, and it did not care if it was wet, muddy, or even rusty.


RE: Neat
By jRaskell on 2/3/2012 4:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes it's "neat". But if we're talking about super accurate high tech firearms, I rather have a man-portable rail gun than gimmick bullets.


I'm sure the military would as well, but considering they're still years away from having even a ship-portable rail gun available, I think it's worth considering any conventional firearm improvements that could be made available within the next decade.


RE: Neat
By Reclaimer77 on 2/3/2012 4:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
I know, and agree. But I think making these bullets a reality could take almost as long.

How about a man portable nuclear reactor with really long power cords for a squad to hook up to their rail-gun rifles?

(yes, that was a joke)


RE: Neat
By YashBudini on 2/7/2012 11:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
(yes, that was a joke)


This statement was required to prevent some idiot from taking your statement literally. The ironic thing it's the very thing you've done with the prior million dollar expenditures remarks here. Or was it simply more of your usual double standard?

There was actually a time the military did purchase $600 hammers and $400 toilet seats from its suppliers. You weren't even born yet, but it was in the news.


RE: Neat
By Solandri on 2/3/2012 5:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure the military would as well, but considering they're still years away from having even a ship-portable rail gun available

A 5.56mm NATO round only has a ballistic energy of 1700-1800 Joules. A 9mm round from a pistol has about 500 Joules. For comparison a AA battery holds about 12,000 Joules of energy (1.5V * 2.2 Amp-hr).

The problem isn't one of size or portability. It's one of technological complexity and cost. Chemically propelled rounds have had several centuries of R&D put into optimizing their design and lowering their cost. Electromagnetic coil guns will take a while to catch up to their reliability and cost-effectiveness.

It's like optical computing. Theoretically, it is clearly superior to electronic transistors. But electrical semiconductors have had 5 decades of innovation, optimization, miniaturization, and cost-cutting. It will be a while before optical computing at the CPU level becomes cost-competitive.


RE: Neat
By JediJeb on 2/3/2012 6:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
The thing to remember though is that even though the AA battery may hold more total energy, unless you use it to charge a quick response capacitor before firing you won't get the energy out fast enough to fire the railgun. You would probably have a gun that sounded like a camera flash as it heat up before going off :)

How many rounds could you power with an 18V DeWalt drill battery? :)


RE: Neat
By Mint on 2/4/2012 12:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
That's why he said it's a challenge of technological complexity.

I think the railgun tangent is missing the point, though. Why would they be any more accurate than chemically propelled bullets could be?

If you can improve your machine gun accuracy from 10 meters to 10 inches, you could use up to 1500x fewer bullets (on small targets). I think this is a very useful technology even at 10x the cost per bullet.


RE: Neat
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2012 12:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the railgun tangent is missing the point, though. Why would they be any more accurate than chemically propelled bullets could be?


Several factors. The most significant being (nearly) zero recoil so there's no kickback on the shooter, insane muzzle velocities, and a nearly flat trajectory for all practical ranges (and then some). A railgun is quite simply the most accurate way to fire a projectile known to man. It's almost a "point and click" weapon. The lack of moving parts or chemical propellant are advantages no standard firearm could possibly compete with.

This is assuming that they can be scaled down to something a soldier could use. Or perhaps a crew served size. And that advancements in materials happen.

But how was I "missing the point"?


RE: Neat
By GuinnessKMF on 2/6/2012 9:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure you understand the difference and similarities between a rail gun and a conventional firearm.

There's nothing inherent about a rail gun that gives it the properties of accuracy that could not be obtained through chemical propellant. Simple physics will tell you that there is just as much recoil on a rail gun to create the same kinetic energy, it's about directing this recoil to cancel itself, which is something that conventional firearms attempt to do. A flash suppressor (or muzzle break) redirects the gas that creates the recoil, and if this system is tuned perfectly, the firing individual would not move off target. There is still a force pushing *back* on the user, and would still exist for a rail gun, the key is to properly balance this against any pivot point (pistol grip) so they don't come off target.

The flat trajectory is again simple physics, you have the same forces of gravity applied to a rail gun as you do a traditional projectile, ballistics still apply. The velocity of the round is what makes it appear to have a flat trajectory, but it still experiences the same acceleration due to gravity.

Any individual fired rail gun would have to combat similar factors that a chemical weapon, that accelerated a round to those speeds, would have to. The major downside to combustion is that you need a chemical that's capable of generating the instant force and a chamber that could hold up to it. The major downside to a railgun is you either need a long rail or capacitors capable of discharging at near instantaneous rates (we can call the flux capacitors).


RE: Neat
By tastyratz on 2/3/2012 4:53:55 PM , Rating: 2
You have just described very realistic techniques to defeat these, although at the same time you will probably see them in specialty use. I can only IMAGINE how much these smart bullets cost, and automatic weapons are now used much less in war. This might be less effective against wars with larger nations, but I can see it working well against insurgents, militia, etc. Aircraft are a good target because you won't see smoke at that speed or polished surfaces with other drawbacks. This could even easily translate to sniper fire.


Skeptical
By adiposity on 2/3/2012 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
Color me skeptical. While the idea is interesting, in practice I imagine it would be pretty hard to accurately target things for curving shots, etc.




RE: Skeptical
By MrBlastman on 2/3/2012 1:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
You can't curve say around corners since lasers are line of sight... It also depends on the FOV of the optical sensor on the bullet and the fins ability to change course. IF they are wide enough... then perhaps someone else lasing a target could allow you to put rounds on target indirectly.

I doubt these will work in that capacity, though. They would be pretty useful hitting a moving target on the other hand...


RE: Skeptical
By Flunk on 2/3/2012 2:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's not designed to do that, it's designed to improve accuracy and to do that all it needs to do is correct the trajectory a tiny bit over the 1,000 yards it's being fired so that it's no longer off by 10 yards (as an example).

Sure it's not as exciting but it is very practical on the battlefield.


RE: Skeptical
By jRaskell on 2/3/2012 4:31:03 PM , Rating: 2
The curving bullet idea was in conjunction with a UAV performing the lasing of targets out of sight of ground forces.


That movie?
By tamalero on 2/3/2012 2:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone Remembers that movie of "WANTED" with Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie?
Curving bullets...




RE: That movie?
By Kurz on 2/3/2012 2:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
We do... and Jason remembers too since he included a reference in the article in the form of a picture. ;)


RE: That movie?
By Ramtech on 2/3/2012 5:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
RE: That movie?
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/3/2012 5:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone Remembers that movie of "WANTED" with Morgan Freeman and Angelina Jolie?
Curving bullets...

I'm trying to forget...

Wanted the comic:
+ Very dark, made no excuses for its own hedonism
+ Not at all approachable by the masses
+ Turned superhero story on its head -- the protagonists were all supervillains, the superheroes were all dead, it was just about organized evil vs. chaotic evil.
+ Featured supervillains with bad@ss powers, such an evil poo creature made of the feces of the 666 most evil tyrants and murders in the history of the Earth.
+ Lots of death

Wanted the movie:
+ Completely changed the story to create sugar-coated Hollywood friendly garbage.
+ Approachable to the masses -- the dumb ones.
+ Reworked the story to turn the protagonist into superheroes (though the end sorta halfway tried to make them back into supervillains).
+ Featured no superpowered villains other than the iconic bullet curving. No poo creature.
+ Not much death.

It was as if they took Batman No Mans Land and turned it into an animated My Little Pony special. Horrible horrible horrible movie...

This kind of echoes my thoughts, too:
http://comicbooks.about.com/od/wanted/fr/wantedmov...


Units
By GuinnessKMF on 2/3/2012 2:04:02 PM , Rating: 1
[quote]Using this model, the engineers found that at a distance of 1,000 meters -- more than half a mile -- the M2 would often miss the target by as much as 10 yards.[/quote]

Seriously? You're going to measure distance in meters and then target deviance in yards? Typically this type of figure is given in MoA. Either use the industry standard or if you're trying to make it a bit easier for a layperson to understand, be consistent with your units.




RE: Units
By xti on 2/3/2012 2:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
RAGEEEEEE


RE: Units
By JediJeb on 2/3/2012 6:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of working on a car, half the bolts are metric the other half are standard.


RE: Units
By FaaR on 2/4/2012 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
Metric IS the standard, matey...


Erm...
By BSquared on 2/4/2012 4:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
I know these are pretty smart engineers, but how are they going to deter counter measures? Pretty sure if these bullets are laser guided, you could set your own lasers in the area to confuse the bullets perhaps? Also, if it's laser guided, couldn't people see the laser in some instances, especially if it's going to have a 1km or more range. <scritches head> Just so many questions on how this thing is actually going to work out in the battlefield.




RE: Erm...
By priusone on 2/6/2012 1:24:52 AM , Rating: 2
That's why you don't rely on a single solution. The troops main weapon might be an M4 or an M16A3, which are semi-auto or three round burst, but there are the gunners with M249s and M240Bs. So the enemy... um, I mean, piece loving individual... might have counter measures, oh well, just aim to the lower left and walk some rounds in.


Excellent article.
By Martlark on 2/5/2012 2:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
This is the best article on steerable bullet I've read on the internet. Well done to the author.




RE: Excellent article.
By YashBudini on 2/6/2012 11:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
As long as the guy steering it isn't an Italian Captain.


By quiksilvr on 2/3/2012 1:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
The bullets now curve around Ryu's sword. GREAT.




By Spookster on 2/3/2012 4:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new bullet was somewhat different in form factor from a traditional design. Where as a traditional design has grooves (rifling) to help it spin like a football pass in flight to improve accuracy, the smart bullet throws away the grooves, which would be incompatible with the adjustable fins.


Traditional barrels have grooves for rifling not the rounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifling




.
By raphd on 2/3/2012 7:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
"OMG UR SUCH A HACKER AND USE AN AIMBOT!"




Not first I've heard
By Smilin on 2/6/2012 10:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
Weren't they working on one a while back that had a bullet head that could tilt to accomplish the steering? It was intended as a sniper round.

The sniper would put it within a foot or two and the spotter would use a laser to put it down to the inch. They envisioned snipers being able to defeat tanks with such accuracy (hit weakspots, take out optics, even put one down the barrel to hit or jam a loaded round).




A Soldier's Best Friend?
By priusone on 2/6/2012 3:40:47 PM , Rating: 2
Considering how IEDs tend to be more of an issue than Mr Haji with an AK-47, I'd say armored vehicles would be more of a friend than rounds which have no where to go.

USA Today: WASHINGTON — Roadside bombs cause 75% of casualties to coalition forces in Afghanistan, up from 50% two years ago, prompting urgent pleas from commanders there for more armored vehicles to protect troops, according to data and interviews.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki