Self-Guided Bullet Can Hit Targets a Mile Away

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

10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!!

[terraStorm24]

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

Farther

[oodaloop]

accuracy improves with targets that are further away,

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

Terminology

[Anonymous Coward]

smooth-bore rifle

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

Here's my deleted (censored?) submission

[wisebabo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Really?

[serviscope_minor]

I don't normally do this, but woosh [wikiquote.org]

Re:Dart Maybe?

[similar_name]

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

Laser Guidance [wikipedia.org]

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Awesome

[Mr2cents]

Just what the world needs: more weaponry. Don't these people have anything better to do with their lives than inventing new murder equipment?

Re:Dart Maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark?

[wagnerrp]

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

Re:misnomer...

[exomondo]

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

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

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

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

Re:Farther

[neonsignal]

Let me quote from Fowler (1926):

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

Re:And who is holding the laser pointer?

[supercrisp]

Putting the crosshairs off the target is called "kentuckying" or "kentucky windage"; it's for amateur hour. Snipers use scopes that let you dial in the range and windage so that the cross hairs keep the point of aim and point of impact the same. Some scopes for short range sniping use "mil-dots," which is an indexed system of little aimpoints up the vertical axis and along the horizontal axis. Those are typically used in telescopic sights of low magnification. (My hobby used to be long-distance target shooting; now I have a wife and kids; my hobby is dodging responsibility.)