Thread: Inventors develop fire and forget bullet technology

You can bet the beast will never allow us mere peasants to get access to this

Sandia Labs' bullet doesn't miss

Not so much fire-and-forget as it needs a laser designator on the target. This article has a bit more info: Sandia Labs engineers create 'self-guided' bullet


elsie

Outstanding info Elsie, thanks !

If it needs a laser designator to be held on the desired impact point isn't that the same thing a sniper would do?

How long does it take a bullet to go a mile? Perhaps a spotter with the laser could keep on target after the shot while the target is moving.

IMO, a bullet is technically fire-and-forget. You can't do anything about it after it leaves the barrel. The only reason to stay where you are is to see if it hits the target. A sniper might decide to move for any follow up shots, or not, depending on the situation.

Well, if the average speed of the round over the length of a mile is 2600 ft/sec., then flight time is about 2 seconds. Either a spotter or forward observer might act as a designator.


elsie

Originally Posted by elsie

IMO, a bullet is technically fire-and-forget. You can't do anything about it after it leaves the barrel. The only reason to stay where you are is to see if it hits the target. A sniper might decide to move for any follow up shots, or not, depending on the situation.

Well, if the average speed of the round over the length of a mile is 2600 ft/sec., then flight time is about 2 seconds. Either a spotter or forward observer might act as a designator.


elsie

Technically Fire and Forget means a "missile lock" which indicates that it has a radar or heat seeker lock (or similar) on the target. A classic case in a movie would be the missile lock on the B52 in Dr Strangelove

My uncle died from one in Korea, he was a bomber pilot

How about a target lased from a drone and fired upon from ground forces behind cover? This means no bullet weight for a drone and soldiers don't have to break cover to take out a target. I don't see this as a near range weapon but it could make an interesting long range weapon.

Originally Posted by ScottyB

How about a target lased from a drone and fired upon from ground forces behind cover? This means no bullet weight for a drone and soldiers don't have to break cover to take out a target. I don't see this as a near range weapon but it could make an interesting long range weapon.

The work of cowards

War is a political action, not a military one. As such, there is no honor in war, only occasional honorable acts. I don't care for tools that make war more impersonal as it just makes it easier for politicians to wage war. On the other hand, I do appreciate the efforts that allow the troops I support to come home safely. It may be a cowardly way to work, but that is different than using civilians as shields or targets. We don't live in a world where both opponents throw down their guns and go to fists when one runs out of ammo. To continue to fight as though we do live in that kind of world does not maintain honor, it just increases the body count on our side.

We don't fight battles by lining up in neat rows to face each other on an open field anymore. Tactics and tools change over time. We could be (and were considered so when we fought the British) called barbarians to fight the way we do against an enemy who lines up in neat rows. I don't see us going back to neat rows though.

Originally Posted by ScottyB

War is a political action, not a military one. As such, there is no honor in war, only occasional honorable acts. I don't care for tools that make war more impersonal as it just makes it easier for politicians to wage war. On the other hand, I do appreciate the efforts that allow the troops I support to come home safely. It may be a cowardly way to work, but that is different than using civilians as shields or targets. We don't live in a world where both opponents throw down their guns and go to fists when one runs out of ammo. To continue to fight as though we do live in that kind of world does not maintain honor, it just increases the body count on our side.

We don't fight battles by lining up in neat rows to face each other on an open field anymore. Tactics and tools change over time. We could be (and were considered so when we fought the British) called barbarians to fight the way we do against an enemy who lines up in neat rows. I don't see us going back to neat rows though.

If the war is honorable I then agree.. none have been since before WW1 for the USA