
EXACTO demonstrates first-ever guided .50-caliber bullets - yurisagalov
http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/07/10a.aspx
======
ArikBe
The video and program page[1] don't reveal anything about how this works. I
remember watching a documentary a few years ago on Discovery channel where
this project was discussed. The bullet was essentially divided into a front
and back portion, which could twist independently. The twisting then allows
for corrections in the air. There's another design by Sandia labs where the
bullets has little "fins" (like a missile)[2], however judging by the render
provided on the DARPA page[3] it's not the bullet by Sandia.

Either way we now have IRL aimbot.

[1]
[http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Extreme_Accuracy_...](http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Extreme_Accuracy_Tasked_Ordnance_%28EXACTO%29.aspx)
[2]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmAzAmYv364](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmAzAmYv364)
[3]
[http://www.darpa.mil/uploadedImages/Content/Our_Work/TTO/Pro...](http://www.darpa.mil/uploadedImages/Content/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Exacto/exacto%20projectile_full.jpg)

~~~
fractalsea
That may explain how the target corrects its trajectory towards the actual
target, but how does the bullet determine what the "actual target" is in the
first place?

I would imagine this would be simple in test cases, but in the real world,
what about a hostile target may differentiate it from a friendly ally that is
nearby?

~~~
ArikBe
I commented below that it's marked by laser, but the counterargument was that
if you can aim a laser you can aim a rifle. Let me rephrase: the goal of this
system is to correct for deviations from the actual target which occur in the
air. Because of wind, temperature, rotation of the earth (when taking really
long shots) and other factors a marksman might have to adjust his or her aim
and actually aim off-target to get the bullet on target. However, using this
system you would just keep the crosshairs on target and the bullet will
correct itself in the air to hit that target. I think that aiming the rifle in
a different spot is only done for test purposes. I can't imagine why you would
want to create a system that automatically determines the target instead of
letting a trained marksman determine the target and help that marksman.

~~~
hueving
Why would the rotation of the earth matter? It's a constant speed and the
person that fires it is rotating with the earth so the rotation is already
part of the trajectory of the bullet. So is the wind for that matter.

~~~
nkurz
At long ranges (1 km+), the rotation of the earth affects both the horizontal
and vertical point of impact. A summary is here:
[http://thearmsguide.com/5329/external-ballistics-the-
corioli...](http://thearmsguide.com/5329/external-ballistics-the-coriolis-
effect-6-theory-section/)

Wind has a larger effect that is evident even at shorter ranges. Bullets are
fast, but during their time of flight they are blown around by the wind just
like any other object passing through the air.

------
ErikRogneby
I wonder what each bullet will cost once production starts?

I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent
was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it
has failed. US military technology might as well be black magic. What can a
"well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache
helicopters, etc?

Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.

~~~
rayiner
The basis of American freedom isn't some libertarians with rifles. Its the
fact that the U.S. military consists of poorly-paid kids who care more about
family and community than they do about abstract ideas. That and the fact that
the military and its arsenal is physicislly distributed over numerous states.
More powerful military technology makes us more free, not less. It just means
it takes fewer people to break ranks from an oppressive government and
effectively oppose it.

The biggest threat is well paid mercenaries. It always has been.

~~~
zobzu
That also relates to the why the police is generally enforcing whatever a
government wants, while the military always sides with the people when things
go really wrong.

~~~
njharman
Counter examples. Civil war, Japanese internment, numerous actions against
native Americans although you may not consider them protected by bill of
rights.

~~~
rayiner
In the context of "oppressive government" I'm thinking of the classic 1984
type situation, with a small faction suppressing the will of the majority.
I.e. subversion of majoritarian will through military power.

Civil war was a civil war, with the country split into two sides. Regional
bonds took precedence over national ones but the military of each faction
sided with the people of their region. Japanese internment and native
Americans involved minorities. The soldiers didn't come from those
communities, and native americans were barely considered people much less
Americans. It doesn't take much to get the majority to take action against a
minority, but that's not an existential threat to democracy.

~~~
nmrm
I can't even begin to express how ass-backwards this comment is. Genocide of
natives and internment not only constitute existential _threats_ to democracy;
by the time either of these happens, democracy is already long dead (excluding
voting and other basic human rights to only the demographics most aligned with
your interests generally doesn't count as democracy. The US today would
probably impose massive sanctions on the domestic US of WWII or especially the
US of westward expansion).

What you're saying, albeit you managed at least a bit of tact, is that
Japanese internment and the genocide of Native Americans don't count as
military-assisted oppression because "it was just the minorities".

~~~
rayiner
Democracy is nothing more or less than rule by the will of the majority,
either directly or indirectly. If the will of "the people" is to exterminate a
minority, and the military carries out that intent, that's not anti-
democratic. It's lots of other things, it's definitely oppression, but it's
not anti-democratic. It doesn't represent an existential threat to a political
system rooted in rule by the majority.

The genocide of native Americans, slavery, segregation, and Japanese
internment were all carried out consistently with the desires of the relevant
polity of the time. When George Wallace stood in front of the school house and
shouted "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" he didn't
do it to try and impose his idiosyncratic view of the world. He did it because
he knew it would endear him to "the people" of Alabama.

~~~
nmrm
> If the will of "the people" is to exterminate a minority, and the military
> carries out that intent, that's not anti-democratic.

Well then, I don't care much for your notion of "democracy", and don't
particularly understand why it would be worth defending or even necessarily
better than minority rule in the first place.

Most reasonable definitions of democracy delineate between mere mob rule, and
democracy as a governmental philosophy (including aspects like equality before
the law).

~~~
rayiner
> don't particularly understand why it would be worth defending or even
> necessarily better than minority rule in the first place.

The word "minority" conjures up images of the oppressed, but through most of
human history, the minority have been the oppressors. The majority were,
historically, ruled by the will of a minority of people that made up royal
families, etc. Saudi Arabia, for example, is a society in which a minority
rules the majority.

Now, of course, in a democracy the majority can use violence to suppress the
minority. But that is in fact the bulwark of democracy: the majority using
violence or the threat thereof to suppress royal families, warlords, etc. And
while ideally the majority does not do this, oppressive rule by the majority
is almost certainly preferable to any situation where the minority is in
power.

------
anemitz
Here is a decent overview of the different approaches to the problem ranging
from consumer (TrackingPoint) to military (DARPA/Sandia): [http://www.army-
technology.com/features/featurelock-and-laun...](http://www.army-
technology.com/features/featurelock-and-launch-future-elite-marksmanship-
sniper/)

The TrackingPoint system is pretty awesome especially since it's tech which is
available today and has some pretty neat applications such aiming through
another device: [http://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/trackingpoint-
shot...](http://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/trackingpoint-shotview-no-
look-shot/3656239752001/)

~~~
joshvm
That system is impressive. The website has a slightly more explanatory video -
I wasn't quite sure what I'd seen from the DARPA link.

So basically the gun has a LIDAR for range, IMU for gun attitude and a Linux
computer inside. You tag your target and it will use some kind of machine
vision algo to track it even if it moves. You hold down the trigger and it
will automatically fire when you put the gun in the right place. It's not
truly guided like the parent, so if it's a windy day you're still likely to
miss, but under calm conditions you can pretty much guarantee a perfect shot.

[http://tracking-point.com/](http://tracking-point.com/)

------
callmeed
Can't decide if this will be mounted on the robots that take over ... or we
will need them to fight the robots

~~~
hawkharris
Realizing that the United States' military capabilities are good enough, DARPA
employees have turned their attention to replicating scenes from video game
boss battles.

------
elinchrome
It's sad how much effort and talent is directed toward killing.

------
dm2
This rifle by TrackingPoint takes another approach but seems similarly
effective, the main thing that it doesn't account for is wind changes. I think
you basically hold down the trigger and it fires when it thinks it'll hit the
target.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVLmf_CBHKM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVLmf_CBHKM)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBC8IFWC1P0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBC8IFWC1P0)
"Vice - The Rifle That Aims Itself"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mZB6NtCx38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mZB6NtCx38)
Moving targets

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA_ndsi5wnA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA_ndsi5wnA)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xleHVuj2uGQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xleHVuj2uGQ)

------
iandanforth
I imagine you pair this with a Tracking Point ([http://tracking-
point.com/](http://tracking-point.com/)) rifle and you'll get some impressive
performance. Thinking through how this would work .. would the sniper's
spotter also become the painter? Or would it take a team of three
Sniper+Spotter+Painter to combine these two technologies?

~~~
edwhitesell
You could probably use the Spotter as the Painter in the scenarios where
there's s Sniper and a Spotter (e.g. SEALs don't use Spotters, whereas Army SF
does).

However, having a Spotter in a different location than the Sniper (or Sniper +
Spotter team) leads to other interesting capabilities. Things like, "I have
the target marked, based on your current GPS position, just aim to the West."

------
ultimoo
I wonder what is the technology behind this? Does the bullet have a small GPS
module along with small motors that change the form of the bullet so that it
can be guided by the rifle over radio frequency? What about the radio waves
being interrupted or jammed etc.

Or is it something more ground-breakingly advanced?

~~~
nostrademons
It says "optical guidance system" in the article. I suspect that the sniper
needs to light up the target with a laser sight, and there's a small computer
and microchip that adjusts the form of the bullet (per other commenter's
description here) so that the laser dot is always directly ahead.

The article also says it's designed to compensate for "weather, wind, or
target movement", so my assumption is that the sniper has to keep the target
in their sight at all times, but it can compensate for the bullet ending up
off-course after it has left the barrel.

~~~
larrys
"It says "optical guidance system" in the article."

It doesn't make much sense that if you were developing an advanced weapons
system that, other than to get out disinformation, it would be a good thing to
tell exactly what you are doing in any detail at all.

What is the advantage of releasing any information at all other than:

1) To insure support and funding for projects

2) To scare the enemy.

3) To get the enemy to spend resources on the wrong thing

..etc.

~~~
nostrademons
This article sounds like a PR piece designed to get out in front of news and
control the messaging. Likely they have reason to believe the project will
leak shortly, and rather than having the media spin it as "Secret military lab
designing killer guided sniper bullets! Police state imminent!", they want it
out in public as "Your tax dollars are going toward some very advanced
technology to ensure American military supremacy."

Just a hunch, having worked with some PR people before.

~~~
larrys
Good point. I agree that's a possibility that instead of being a fresh
"discovery" it becomes old news (if not reported right away). [1] But I'm
wondering whether if that were the strategy it wouldn't make more sense to
provide easier to understand (for layman) information? It was hard for me to
follow from the visual I can't see any reporter simply writing about it or
getting interested from what appears there. In other words it doesn't look
very "sexy" visually. And presents as if it's in a very basic form (but then
maybe that is exactly your point..)

[1] Obama did this with revelations of cocaine usage. Once it was out there it
wasn't a big juicy story to present. Media likes scoops, exclusives not just
digging up old info (ala some HN posts) of things that perhaps people missed
(unless there is an angle that they can work).

I guess here is the thing about old news. People must assume that if something
were said in 2012 and nobody made a fuss about it then it's because it's not a
big deal.

------
ChuckMcM
Fascinating, I thought it was the finned bullet but this doesn't seem to be
that. There was an interesting, if somewhat forgettable, movie staring Tom
Selleck called 'Runaway' which posited "tracker" bullets and use the of quad
copters for remote surveillance.

I expect the next step will be fabrics that fluoresce in the visible spectrum
when hit by IR or UV laser light to help warn people they are being
'designated.'

------
EGreg
"by compensating for weather, wind, target movement and other factors that
could impede successful hits."

Translation: those poor suckers who try running sideways will still get hit
with these new bullets.

------
bane
Now get your targets and guidance from an overhead drone and shoot at people
you can't even see!

~~~
RyJones
or arm the drone.

------
melvinmt
I wonder if there are any startups in weapon technology.

~~~
bootload
> startups in weapon technology

Metal Storm: old but interesting. Mike O'Dwyer conceived of an idea for _" a
rapid-fire gun prototype ... can fire up to 1,000,000 rounds per minute, or
16,000 rounds per second."_ [0] to give extra fire-power for Special Forces
soldiers. More details can be read here:
[http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s167329.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s167329.htm)

cf: [0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Mike_O%27Dwyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Mike_O%27Dwyer)

~~~
prawn
Were these the guys who adapted their technology to fire fertiliser pellets
into the ground from the air, for agricultural purposes?

~~~
bootload
@prawn, not sure but probably not.

------
finishingmove
Another thing for killing. Just what the world needed.

~~~
keehun
This is what I initially thought, but there is always a flip-side.

Unless, humans agreed to complete cessation of violence (intentional or not),
which to my knowledge has never lasted more than a week in recorded history
(of wars), someone will always try to kill someone else.

Although I don't support the Military Industry, I think projects like this
have the potential to get less people killed in battle.

------
pyrocat
Countdown to
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag)

~~~
cromwellian
Bah, 1984 called and Tom Selleck and Gene Simmons want their self-guided
bullets back:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA6ybohAVq8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA6ybohAVq8)

~~~
cromwellian
This is being voted down, why? The entire subject of _Runaway_ is self guiding
bullets and killer drones, and it came out in 1984.

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
How did Tom Selleck defeat these things?

~~~
tomcam
By being barely smarter than Gene Simmons. Michael Crichton directed IIRC.

