3 ms·

"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 o

by larrys 12y ago

"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.

robotresearcher 12y ago
0) To inform the people that supplied the funding how it is being spent, in case they want to provide some feedback.
nostrademons 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
stan_rogers 12y ago
It doesn't need to be any more than what it (apparently) says on the tin. .50 BMG is very ballistically efficient as it is, so at shorter ranges, windage really isn't much of a concern. But at a couple of kilometres or more, drift can be significant. Keep in mind that these bullets will be used for individual kills of high-value human targets (no point putting it any differently; there's no advantage over tracers when used for automatic fire for antimateriel purposes where single shots would be ridiculous to contemplate, and there's no "shoot to wound" in the military, both by the rules of war and for more practical "he can still shoot back" reasons), and that recent operations (particularly in Afghanistan) have been in conditions where trying to get closer than a couple of clicks is suicidal due to lack of cover.

by larrys 12y ago

robotresearcher 12y ago

0) To inform the people that supplied the funding how it is being spent, in case they want to provide some feedback.

nostrademons 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.

stan_rogers 12y ago

It doesn't need to be any more than what it (apparently) says on the tin. .50 BMG is very ballistically efficient as it is, so at shorter ranges, windage really isn't much of a concern. But at a couple of kilometres or more, drift can be significant. Keep in mind that these bullets will be used for individual kills of high-value human targets (no point putting it any differently; there's no advantage over tracers when used for automatic fire for antimateriel purposes where single shots would be ridiculous to contemplate, and there's no "shoot to wound" in the military, both by the rules of war and for more practical "he can still shoot back" reasons), and that recent operations (particularly in Afghanistan) have been in conditions where trying to get closer than a couple of clicks is suicidal due to lack of cover.