Advanced Technologies in US Military applications

Hachimoto wrote:Where do you see it's for Humain targets ?

Anti Material Rifles are mainly used by US against people not against vehicles or light armored vehicles.

Just watch the hundreds of videos of US snipers with Barretts firing against civilians or (unproven terrorists).

Werewolf wrote:

Hachimoto wrote:Where do you see it's for Humain targets ?

Anti Material Rifles are mainly used by US against people not against vehicles or light armored vehicles.

Just watch the hundreds of videos of US snipers with Barretts firing against civilians or (unproven terrorists).

The purpose of the design # the actual use of the item.

As you say the US army , but also Russian/Soviet army in Chechnya remind us this rule.

But yet again the concept is very futuristic and a huge improvement in modern warfare.

Hachimoto wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Hachimoto wrote:Where do you see it's for Humain targets ?

Anti Material Rifles are mainly used by US against people not against vehicles or light armored vehicles.

Just watch the hundreds of videos of US snipers with Barretts firing against civilians or (unproven terrorists).

The purpose of the design # the actual use of the item.

As you say the US army , but also Russian/Soviet army in Chechnya remind us this rule.

But yet again the concept is very futuristic and a huge improvement in modern warfare.

I don't know what is huge improvement. Having a 100K projectile that will FIND 0 USE in 90% of situations. This is like the Xcalibur rounds. 200K USD a pop. Great for the show, Nowhere near as economical in mass warfare.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

I don't know what is huge improvement. Having a 100K projectile that will FIND 0 USE in 90% of situations. This is like the Xcalibur rounds. 200K USD a pop. Great for the show, Nowhere near as economical in mass warfare.

doubt its anywhere more than 1/100th of that... that's some voodoo corruption level. and sniper rifles aren't artillery whose main use is saturating areas with shells - they are not AR either whose main use is suppressing the enemy in his cover. they are meant to shoot directly at targets you can see and identify on the scope - a guided round would only help in that regard.

collegeboy16 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

I don't know what is huge improvement. Having a 100K projectile that will FIND 0 USE in 90% of situations. This is like the Xcalibur rounds. 200K USD a pop. Great for the show, Nowhere near as economical in mass warfare.

doubt its anywhere more than 1/100th of that... that's some voodoo corruption level. and sniper rifles aren't artillery whose main use is saturating areas with shells - they are not AR either whose main use is suppressing the enemy in his cover. they are meant to shoot directly at targets you can see and identify on the scope - a guided round would only help in that regard.

I was exagerating off course, but still having a specialty round that is needed in a limited set of situations over already available solutions, seems like a solution looking for problems.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

I was exagerating off course, but still having a specialty round that is needed in a limited set of situations over already available solutions, seems like a solution looking for problems.

its not a solution looking for a problem. its actually a step in the right direction. training a marksman is very expensive, time-consuming and requires a lot of effort. and yet in the field you can only expect them to perform at least their worst. with this new thingamajig some gi joe could be as good as a trained marksman.

and it could be only considered a specialty due to cost. literally every situation that requires you to hit an enemy with sniper's bullet would have better outcome when using basically aimbot bullets.

collegeboy16 wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

I was exagerating off course, but still having a specialty round that is needed in a limited set of  situations over already available solutions, seems like a solution looking for problems.

its not a solution looking for a problem. its actually a step in the right direction. training a marksman is very expensive, time-consuming and requires a lot of effort. and yet in the field you can only expect them to perform at least their worst. with this new thingamajig some gi joe could be as good as a trained marksman.

and it could be only considered a specialty due to cost. literally every situation that requires you to hit an enemy with sniper's bullet would have better outcome when using basically aimbot bullets.

Why not buy russian Fire Control System Complex for Sniper rifles, which calculates the trajectory and gives you indicator where to aim and to shoot instead of wasting 20K on every single round?

Werewolf wrote:
Why not buy russian Fire Control System Complex for Sniper rifles, which calculates the trajectory and gives you indicator where to aim and to shoot instead of wasting 20K on every single round?

but that would still require you to be able to pull off such a shot yourself. the electronic sight only gives you the correct aimpoint and with maybe an electronic trigger present the correct timing to loose off a round. you still have to get to get your reticle anywhere near that aimpoint. oh and for purposes of long range shooting the extended time on target means environmental factors get to play a bit with your round, and the enemy that was so intent on walking 2m/s in that direction could have remembered he forgotten something and went back- so count that round as a miss then. with a guided round all you need to do is to keep the target under your sights which is easy enough. and then press when the target is recognized.

Let's be real GarryB, the Hague court for Human Rights is a fraud...a completely politicized institution that will never trial Brzezinski, Cheney, Bush, or any Pro-NATO butchers, which is why the African Union is in a hot dispute with the Hague. The Hague was shown to be nothing more than a fraudulent tool to spread Black propaganda...You can break as many international laws, commit as many human right abuses (Agent Orange in Vietnam, Nukes used to annihilate civilian populations in Japan, depleted uranium in Iraq), so long as your a favored son of NATO...no harm will come to you...unless you outlasted your usefulness, then you'll end up like Saddam! MAFIA STYLE!!!

GarryB wrote:Targeting human targets with 50 cal bullets violates the Hague convention on the use of large calibre rounds on human targets.

Of course their standard 30 cal sniper bullet is a hollow point bullet which violates the Hague convention too... as does the fragmentation effect of the 5.56mm round they use.

the irony is they tried to accuse the Soviets of violating the same rules with the 5.45mm round but it does not deform on impact... its mild steel case retains its shape.

Garry this is a perpetual myth going on for decades,  so much so that it is specifically cited below:

U.S. NAVY NWP 1-14M
U.S. MARINE CORPS MCWP 5-12.1
U.S. COAST GUARD COMDTPUB P5800.7A

THE COMMANDER’S
HANDBOOK ON THE LAW
OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

EDITION JULY 2007

9.1.1 Unnecessary Suffering
Antipersonnel weapons are designed to kill or disable enemy combatants and are lawful notwithstanding the
death, pain, and suffering they inflict. Weapons that are designed to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous
injury are, however, prohibited because the degree of pain or injury, or the certainty of death they produce is
needlessly or clearly disproportionate to the military advantage to be gained by their use. Poisoned projectiles and
small arms ammunition intended to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering fall into this category.
Similarly, using materials that are difficult to detect or undetectable by field x-ray equipment, such as glass or
clear plastic, as the injuring mechanism in military ammunition is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the
treatment of wounds. Use of such materials as incidental components in ammunition, e.g., as wadding or packing,
is not prohibited. Use of .50-caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation
of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.

Force Field Made Of Lasers

A Glimpse At Tomorrow’s Electromagnetic Spectrum Weapons


Drones and decoys

Useful for more than loitering over a target and lobbing Hellfire missiles, drones will be used to launch jamming or hacking attacks at short distances. (An example would be this drone that does penetration testing.)

The key is the unmanned aircraft’s ability to sneak up on an adversary. The closer you are physically to the target, the less power you need to use, which makes your electronic warfare operation harder to detect and counter.

“The U.S. military could shift toward using unmanned vehicles or expendable payloads that emit low-power jamming noise in the [radio frequency] spectrum … or dazzling [electro-optical / infrared sensors] or narrowly focused radar beams to establish accurate targeting information for attacks,” the authors write.

But Clark and Gunzinger see another use for drones: as decoys meant to provoke the enemy to activate his fire-control radar and thereby reveal its position.

Here’s how they describe it: “Use passive sensors to detect enemy [radio frequency and infrared emissions.] Locations of enemy emitters can be determined by triangulating emissions received by multiple, dispersed manned or unmanned platforms or by analyzing the Doppler shift of [electromagnetic] emissions received by passive sensors. It is likely that some targets, such as fire control radars, will only emit after receiving a cue from a sensor…the U.S. military could use emitting decoys to cause fire control radars to activate, allowing passive sensors to geo-locate them.”

Stealthier sensors

Lasers aren’t just useful for burning holes in things. Light Detection and Ranging lasers, or LIDAR, is how self-driving cars see the road. The same principle could be used to detect objects that we today hunt with radar — using tightly focused laser beams that are harder to detect than radio signals.

Another way to reduce U.S. military electromagnetic emissions is to go passive. Instead of powerful emitters, future sensors could use “ambient energy that comes from enemy communication systems, emitters of opportunity such as television and radio transmitters,” they write. “In the absence of a predominant emitter, U.S. forces could use multiple networked receivers to evaluate returns from different aspects of a potential target.”



EMP cruise missiles

“Within the next five years, DOD could field cruise missiles with [high powered microwave] warheads that could be launched from standoff distances to attack electronics-based [anti-access/area denial] systems,” the authors write. Think the GoldenEye in missile form.



Read the pdf.

These Are the New Weapons the Pentagon Chief Wants for Tomorrow’s Wars

Smarter smart bombs, mini railguns, and swarming robot boats to watch man-made islands are a few of the key technology areas that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter sees as vital to U.S. military superiority in the next decade. In a preview of the Pentagon’s upcoming 2017 budget request, Carter said military research and development spending would rise to $71.4 billion from last year’s $71.3 billion request.) Carter also listed areas where the Defense Department was already seeing “returns” on R&D spending through the Strategic Capabilities Office, or SCO.

“I’d like to tell you about a few projects SCO has been working on that we’re funding in the budget,” he said. “Some you may have heard of, and some we’re talking about here for the very first time” he said.

Sending Swarmboats to Watch Manmade Islands

Robotic autonomy is critical to the Pentagon’s ambitions to be in more places at less cost. Carter today highlighted “swarming, autonomous vehicles in all sorts of ways, and in multiple domains.

Many military technologists such as Center for a New American Security senior fellow Paul Scharre and New America’s Peter Singer see robotic teaming, or swarming, as a game-changing capability on the battlefield. The military has been researching swarmbots large and small, for years.

Swarming robots aren’t just in the air but also on the water. In 2014, on Virginia’s James River, the Office of Naval Research staged a key demonstration of the Control Architecture for Robotic Agent Command and Sensing, or CARACaS, system in which 13 self-driving boats conducted highly coordinated maneuvers.

Carter alluded to the demonstration in his Tuesday speech: “And for the water, they’ve developed self-driving boats, which can network together to do all sorts of missions, from fleet defense to close-in surveillance – including around an island, real or artificial, without putting our sailors at risk,” a clear (if indirect) reference to China’s man-made islands in the Pacific.

Smaller Railguns

The high cost of advanced ballistics is driving the military toward cheaper alternatives like direct energy and electromagnetic railgun that hurl shells at hypersonic speeds. The Navy is planning an at-sea demonstration of a BAE designed railgun that can hurl 44-pound shells.

But Carter wants to shrink railgun technology until it can fit into “the five-inch guns at the front of every Navy destroyer, and also the hundreds of Army Paladin self-propelled howitzers. This way, instead of spending more money on more expensive interceptors, we can turn past offense into future defense – defeating incoming missile raids at much lower cost per round, and thereby imposing higher costs on the attacker,” he said.


He noted a January demonstration that equipped a Paladin with railgun capabilities.

Smarter Smart Bombs

Helping bombs find their targets without relying on outside communications (or worse, dumb luck) could decrease errant strikes and save lives. Carter highlighted advanced navigation projects that would use “the same kinds of micro-cameras and sensors that are littered throughout our smartphones today, and putting them on our Small Diameter Bombs to augment their targeting capabilities. This will eventually be a modular kit that will work with many other payloads – enabling off-network targeting through commercial components that are small enough to hold in your hand.”

DARPA’s program in micro-technology for positioning, navigation and timing exemplifies this long-standing,growing research effort

Arsenal Planes

And where will these smarter smart bombs descend from?

Carter said the Pentagon is working to turn “one of our oldest aircraft platforms” — understood to be the B-52 bomber — into “a flying launch pad for all sorts of different conventional payloads. In practice, the arsenal plane will function as a very large airborne magazine, networked to 5th-generation aircraft that act as forward sensor and targeting nodes – essentially combining different systems already in our inventory to create wholly new capabilities.”

Here’s what that might look like in a real-world mission. Next-generation stealth fighter jets like the F-22 and the F-35 would take the lead in a strike, slipping through and disabling enemy radar and electromagnetic weapons. The arsenal planes would follow to finish the job.

Fifth-generation fighter and older craft have difficulty communicating, which some have highlighted as a critical oversight in planning. Carter today acknowledged that fixing the problem is going to be key to keeping older aircraft relevant.

US Tests Unmanned Ghost Ship to Track Spying Submarines

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160215/1034759480/us-vessel-hunter-track-spying-submarines.html#ixzz40EIm06Aj

US Navy increasing combat lasers power to 500 kilowatt level by 2020 to counter ballistic missiles


Fantasy or Grim Reality ?

In 2012, the US Navy initiated the SSL Technology Maturation (SSL-TM) program, in which industry teams led by BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon, among others, competed to develop a shipboard laser with a beam power of 100 kW to 150 kW by 2016.

Boosting beam power further—to something like 200 kW or 300 kW—could permit a laser to counter at least some ASCMs. Even stronger beam powers—on the order of at least several hundred kW, if not one megawatt (MW) or more—could improve a laser’s effectiveness against ASCMs (Anti-Ship Cruise Missile) and enable it to counter ASBMs (Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile.

By 2020, it should be possible to demonstrate a 250-500 kW laser weapon system, one appropriate for deployment on current surface combatants and capable of being a game changer in the Navy’s struggle to address the growing A2/AD challenge.








Lasers don't work. But, periodically, there are scammers that get government money for high-power-laser systems for missile defense, even on ships. People fall for the scams, because lasers sound so SF.

DARPA Teaches Drones to Collaborate (Under Human Supervision)



The US Defense Department’s Advanced Research Programs Agency (DARPA) selected Lockheed Martin and Raytheon as the prime contractors for the agency’s Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) demonstration. The program seeks to help conduct dynamic Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) operations over long distances, against short lived, moving targets in denied or contested electromagnetic airspace. While improving the flexibility of force projection CODE will decrease the communication bandwidth required to control such airborne forces and reduce cognitive burden on human supervisors.

DARPA recently awarded Phase 2 system integration contracts for CODE to Lockheed Martin Corporation (Orlando, Fla.) and the Raytheon Company (Tucson, Ariz.). The two prime contractors for the program that will collaborate with six teams that continue their work from Phase 1, supporting technologies associated with CODE.

CODE’s main objective is to develop and demonstrate the value of collaborative autonomy, in which UASs could perform sophisticated tasks both individually and in teams under the supervision of a single human mission commander. CODE-equipped UASs would perform their mission by sharing data, negotiating assignments, and synchronizing actions and communications among team members and with the commander.

CODE’s modular, open software architecture embedded on board the UASs would enable multiple CODE-equipped unmanned aircraft to navigate to their destinations and find, track, identify, and engage targets under established rules of engagement.

The UASs could also recruit other CODE-equipped UASs from nearby friendly forces to augment their capabilities and adapt to dynamic situations such as attrition of friendly forces or the emergence of unanticipated threats.

A video showing promising early research into the interface is available below:



“During Phase 1, we successfully demonstrated, in simulation, the potential value of collaborative autonomy among UASs at the tactical edge, and worked with our performers to draft transition plans for possible future operational systems,” said Jean-Charles Ledé, DARPA program manager. “Between the two teams, we have selected about 20 autonomous behaviors that would greaty increase the mission capabilities of our legacy UASs and enable them to perform complex missions in denied or contested environments in which communications, navigation, and other critical elements of the targeting chain are compromised. We have also made excellent progress in the human-system interface and open-architecture framework.”

CODE’s prototype human-system interface (HSI) is designed to allow a single person, either a pilot or ground controller to visualize, supervise, and command a team of unmanned systems in an intuitive manner. Mission commanders can know their team’s status and tactical situation, see pre-planned and alternative courses of action, and alter the UASs’ activities in real time.

For example, the mission commander could pick certain individual UASs from a team, circle them on the command station display, say “This is Group 1,” circle another part of the map, and say “Group 1 search this area.” The software then creates a sub-team with the circled UASs, divides up the search task among those assets, and redistributes the original tasks assigned to Group 1 assets to the remaining UASs. This capability significantly simplifies the command and control of large groups of UASs. Other parts of the HSI research focused on how to display the new plan, including the potential impact on other mission objectives, and—depending on pre-set mission rules—either directly executes the plan or waits for the commander’s approval to act.

The HSI and autonomy algorithms are being developed in open architectures based on emerging standards. These include the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) and Unmanned Control Segment (UCS) standards used by the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy, and the Open Mission Systems (OMS) and Common Mission Command and Control (CMCC) standards that the U.S. Air Force uses.

During Phase 2, DARPA plans to implement an initial subset of the behaviors within each of the two open architectures and use those architectures to conduct live flight tests with one or two live UASs augmented with several virtual aircraft. If those tests are successful, DARPA could move to Phase 3, in which one team would test the capabilities using up to six live vehicles cooperating among themselves and with additional simulated vehicles. A single person would command the UAS team to perform a complex mission involving target search, identification, and engagement against an active, unpredictable adversary.

Beyond video games: New artificial intelligence beats tactical experts in combat simulation

Not only was Lee not able to score a kill against ALPHA after repeated attempts, he was shot out of the air every time during protracted engagements in the simulator. wrote:

U.S. Army Considering New Superweapon "to counter Russian nuclear tanks."


http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/us-army-considers-super-weapon-to-counter-russia/ar-BBzMD4q?li=AAggFp5&ocid=SKY2DHP