Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Assume a hemispherical cow.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


               

Self-Destructing Bullet

Explodes to prevent friendly fire.
  (+1, -4)
(+1, -4)
  [vote for,
against]

One of the big advances in bullet technology recently has been bullets that explode at a predetermined distance. I would like to combine this technology with "The Saint"s idea for a bullet that won't hit friendlies.

Every soldier wears a transmitter, which transmits a radio frequency with a range of ~5 feet. If a bullet enters this range the explosive will be triggered turnign the slug into a cloud of dust.

You may say "what about the ammunition being carried by the soldiers?" but don't worry, that won't explode because the charge isn't armed until ~30 milliseconds after the bullet leaves the barrel.

The idea can be applied to bombs as well, but with the principle reversed. If a bomb dropped from a fighter comes within 200 yards of friendlies, it *won't explode.

DIYMatt, Nov 16 2009

[link]






       So, were I an enemy, I'd just design a bullet/bomb that seeks out your transmitters and blows them all to pieces.   

       Also I might get all clever and such and just use elementary signal detection and direction finding to locate your soldiers....   

       Wouldn't it make sense to have your soldiers transmit as little as possible in order to be difficult to detect? Don't their radio's all use hard-to-detect, hard-to-track and hard-to-eavesdrop burst-transmitters?   

       Much of the technology and tactics being used right now are geared towards fighting poorly trained and even more poorly equiped enemies.   

       What happens if coalition/UN/NATO forces comes up agains a genuinely well trained and equipped force?
Custardguts, Nov 16 2009
  

       //has been bullets that explode at a predetermined distance//
The smallest rounds I'm aware of with this capability are 40mm AAA shells, and that's a pre-determined distance from the barrel, not the target. The muzzle velocity at the flash-eliminator is measured and a time fuse in the shell programmed.
  

       Active proximity shells are even bigger. [-]
coprocephalous, Nov 16 2009
  

       Nah mate the new 20mm "grenades" the USA-n's and those funky Heckler & Koch were working on for the OICW project were airburst. Used a laser rangefinder then the shell counted revolutions to get range (I think).   

       That all got canned during testing and now they're onto the 25mm bandwagon, still with "precision" airburst capability. They call it the XM25 system, but there's also the XM307 which is the same but in crew-served form.   

       Also I was certain that one of the bushmaster 25mm cannons they've been hawking about had airburst ammunition. I remember seeing an online video of a demonstration - this APC looking thing with a 25mm cannon was airbursting rounds inside a bunker or pillarbox setup some several hundred metres away. They would just range the window frame then set to "detonate 1m past" and shoot through the window.   

       Anyhoo so airburst is pretty baked.
Custardguts, Nov 16 2009
  

       ..would have been better as *self-destructing ballet*...
xandram, Nov 16 2009
  

       Where's [8th] when we need him (them)?   

       If a bullet is travelling at, say, 1000m/s and we asusme that this system *actually works* then the bullet will have 0.005s to become harmless. So, how are we going to turn the bullet into harmless cloud of dust, rather than a firey exlosion of shrapnel?   

       Oh, hold on. You said 5ft, not 5 m. That means we only have 0.00015s to do our magic.   

       The other thing in my mind here is that, much like car stopping distances, there is a reaction time and a braking time. - or in this case a receiving time, a processing time, and a successful detonation time.
Jinbish, Nov 16 2009
  

       idiotic.
WcW, Nov 17 2009
  

       Sounds dumb. Dumb dumb [-]
Dub, Nov 17 2009
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle