Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO)

1. Deadly

2. Drop your cell phone and its cashed, what did they do to get the electronics to withstand the dynamics?

3. Apply these innovations to cell phones.

2. Drop your cell phone and its cashed, what did they do to get the electronics to withstand the dynamics?

enhanced Solid State Electronics?

I'm curious though, with the spinning of the round, the rapid adjustments necessary to change course.

Let's say you want to draw your shot, so air resistance needs to increase on the left side of the round's current path of travel... Bullet RPM is (MVx720) / Twist with a typical range of 150k to 250k RPM... for a .308 anyway.

"Head Scratcher" Guess I'll stick to operating the weapon rather than designing them ;-)

Maybe it's smooth bore? I've no experience of shooting but isn't the spinning induced by the barrel rifling needed to make the standard bullet fly straight? If the bullet is self steering perhaps there is no need for the spin.

Maybe the bullet spins inside, like a gyro...

It could be... the longer the round is to its width, the faster its spin must be to stay stable but at some point the spin rate becomes too fast to achieve so the round is finned and the bore smoothed. Since the fins now provide the stabilization, there is no need for the round to spin to stabilize.

So there you have it... smooth bore sniper rifle with finned rounds... thanks for getting me outta my box.

"what did they do to get the electronics to withstand the dynamics?"

It's so small and light nowadays that's easy.

I worked on two electronic fuze systems in the late 70s early 80s.

One was for nuclear projectiles shot from 105 Howitzers and the other was for the 40mm Bofors cannon. The forces were enormous.

You had "set-back" which begins when the powder ignites and the projectile starts moving and ends as the projectile exits the barrel (then the forces are reversed) and "shock-start" which is the result of spin-up as it travels down the barrel.

I don't remember the G-forces involved but they were tremendous.

The shock start was simulated by firing the electronics package down a "chicken gun" tube into a 12x12x12 block of marine grade plywood. So it was actually a "shock-stop" test. Same difference.

We never had any Howitzers to play with, but we did have a couple of Bofors cannons mounted on trucks, that we would haul out to the Army artillery range and fire.

http://www.gizmag.com/eaps-miniature-hit-to-kill-interceptor-flight-tested/26824/

Too expensive.

Wow, that must be one hell of a recoil on that rifle.

When you drop your phone and it is cashed, it is almost always the screen that breaks. There might be the rare occasion when a charging port or vital button gets damaged. I even suppose you might be able to damage the large battery in part because thin phones with large batteries will distort in bad ways if sufficient force are applied in the right directions.

...but bullets don't have screens, don't need large batteries, will be in a metal jacket, and won't have flimsy charging ports.

Aside from those types of things, your phone is extremely shock robust. Remember, the bullet doesn't need to survive impact with the target. Even though typical muzzle velocity of a bullet is far greater than the speed your phone is traveling just before it hits the tile floor, the bullet gets to that speed over the length of the barrel. The distance over which the phone reverse direction, bouncing off the tile floor is at least a few orders of magnitude shorter than a typical rifle barrel.

The point is the necessary electronics already exist in phones and already withstand similar acceleration.

With this technology, you could have non-lethal round that stops at the target and unwinds the headgear.

Like this one?

http://www.gizmag.com/sandia-self-guided-bullet/21286/

One of the benefits in your part of the world is DARPA. In Australia, the focus feels like we are buyers/takers and innovation is supported like the local car industry. (The remaining Toyota, Ford and GM will stop making cars in Australia in less than 150 weeks).

And when it comes to EXACTO, our magnetic wafer weapon system would do all that and more. But it is restricted by the Australian Defence Export Control Office (DECO) advisories 121506. Meanwhile, Australia will not even support trials of the technology.

And then there is another DARPA initiative for long range, unmanned marine tracking craft. A sort of EXACTO ordinance that tracks its target for a long time at sea. Our micro submersible surface operating vessel (MSSOV) has another DECO 120337 limitation.
"Frustrating one day ... Australia the next!"

Oh really?

...I don't think so...

An Exacto knife is better technology.

--Osama bin Laden, ret.