UAV Sniper Drone

June 2, 2008 11:42 AM

It's an unmanned, flying gun.
posted by socalsamba (55 comments total)

If their engineering is up to the quality of their image processing, this should work out great!
posted by DU at 11:46 AM on June 2, 2008 [4 favorites]

DU: IT HAS IN-BUILT DOT MATRIX FIDELITY.
posted by basicchannel at 11:48 AM on June 2, 2008

Correction. It's a nonexistent unmanned flying gun, based on technology that hasn't actually been invented yet.

From the .pdf linked on the page:

Sagetech is nearing completion of a DARPA seedling investigation into the feasibility of the UAV Sniper vehicle concept....Sagetech is prepared to continue the development of the UAV Sniper vehicle. The technologies refined during this process will bring the full capabilities of the UAV Sniper vehicle to fruition."

It's about as real as a lightsaber.
posted by dersins at 11:48 AM on June 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

I like how their artist's conception shows the American flag in the background. Nothing says "All men are created equal" like an airborne, robotic killing machine.
posted by felix betachat at 11:49 AM on June 2, 2008 [4 favorites]

Lightsabers are real?

Shit.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:50 AM on June 2, 2008

Next up: "program error" takes on a whole new meaning.
posted by SaintCynr at 11:51 AM on June 2, 2008

It looks like an unmanned flying phallus.
posted by gurple at 11:51 AM on June 2, 2008

Can UAVs not already launch unmanned, flying explodey things?
posted by Artw at 11:53 AM on June 2, 2008

i guess we now have to worry about "fly-by shootings" too!
posted by bitteroldman at 11:55 AM on June 2, 2008

I read the post as, "It's an unnamed, flying nun."





I think that would be more unnerving to the Forces Of Terror.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:58 AM on June 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

I prefer to vaporize my human targets from space.
posted by Muddler at 12:00 PM on June 2, 2008 [4 favorites]

The Predator drone does this, except instead of a bullet it fires a hellfire missile. You dont need to be as exact with an air to ground anti-armor missile.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:02 PM on June 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

I've seen the future, brother. It is murder.
posted by rokusan at 12:04 PM on June 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Hellfire missile.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2008

If there gun-making abiliities are anywhere close to their HTML skills, were all in trouble.
posted by subaruwrx at 12:05 PM on June 2, 2008

Hey... It delivers pizzas too.
posted by Flex1970 at 12:08 PM on June 2, 2008

Manned flying guns have target accuracy like THIS but unmanned flying guns have target accuracy like THIS amirite?
posted by DU at 12:09 PM on June 2, 2008

Maybe they could fire one at reddit posts.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:12 PM on June 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

damn dirty ape, the Hellfire is impressive. But it costs $60k for one missile. A bullet is much cheaper, and so more likely to be used on a great scale. I'm sure they're salivating over the utility of a cheap assassination that is difficult to blame on anyone specific.
posted by SaintCynr at 12:13 PM on June 2, 2008

Nice post Muddler. I so happy to learn that I'm not the only one who immediately thinks of Real Genius when stuff like this comes up...
posted by LakesideOrion at 12:15 PM on June 2, 2008

SaintCynr, I wouldnt be surprised that drone deployment itself was a hefty cost and saving on the ammo wouldnt be such a big save in the long run. For long term snipering you'd probably want a regular human sniper. For behind enemy lines high-risk attacks you're probably better off with a drone with a missile.

I guess its all moot until someone actually proves they can make this thing hit a real target.

Also, its worth noting that drones are not quiet and are easily spotted by people on the ground. The idea is that youre probably going to lose it so make the most of it. This is good for big anti-armor attacks, but will not be capable of doing a stealth assassination anytime soon.
posted by damn dirty ape at 12:22 PM on June 2, 2008

A bullet is much cheaper

and much less likely to cause collateral damage. You could make a fortune selling this to Israel alone if it actually works.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:24 PM on June 2, 2008

If there gun-making abiliities are anywhere close to their HTML skills, were all in trouble.

Not to specifically support these guys or not, but people who take up other learned disciplines and skills often lack HTML and web design expertise. Academics' websites, for example, are usually very simple and plain - not usually annoying to use or ineffective at communicating, but there's ZOMG NO CSS AND OH NO THERE'S A TABLE AND THERE'S IMPROPER USE OF WHITESPACE AND THE FONTS AREN'T PROPERLY CHOSEN ZOMG ZOMG which would get them criticized if linked here while, for example, these guys would probably not criticize an HTML code monkey for his lack of flying gun design skills.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 12:25 PM on June 2, 2008 [9 favorites]

Hey... It delivers pizzas too.

Now there's an idea.

I'm halfway surprised these people didn't start out with a MySpace page instead.
posted by jsavimbi at 12:28 PM on June 2, 2008

It looks like an unmanned, flying phallus.

Once again Metafilter sets the national security agenda.
posted by eritain at 12:30 PM on June 2, 2008

Oh. 95% confident that it'll hit the target--I thought at first it meant 95% confidence that it was the right target.

This new focus on precision-based weaponry that military research seems, at my glance, to be taking has me a bit worried. It seems to be a sign that the wars of the future will be further colonial pursuits, where a weak government is quickly toppled and most of the time is spent weeding out remaining rebels. The scariest part of this type of technology (to my own self-interest), is that it can be as quickly applied to one's own civilian population. And it wouldn't really look like a military dictatorship to most people, since we're only used to seeing low-tech ones.

But then I've also played too much half life 2.
posted by Citizen Premier at 12:37 PM on June 2, 2008 [3 favorites]

I'm sorry. I'm a totally, lefty-pinko-liberal pacifist...but this mofo is pretty damn cool!! They MUST incorporate this into Halo 4.
posted by Helixxx at 12:57 PM on June 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Did anyone notice the serial number? You should know that this is not the only one... that can hurt you.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:03 PM on June 2, 2008 [1 favorite]

Tony Stark needs to destroy this thing.
posted by gcbv at 1:19 PM on June 2, 2008

SH10151, if I'm not mistaken.
posted by googly at 1:24 PM on June 2, 2008

>>I wouldnt be surprised that drone deployment itself was a hefty cost

Absolutely agree.


>>For long term snipering you'd probably want a regular human sniper.

Also agree.

>>I guess its all moot until someone actually proves they can make this thing hit a real target.

of course!

>>Also, its worth noting that drones are not quiet and are easily spotted by people on the ground.

At night? When there's other noise, or folks are distracted, as at a sporting event? At a political rally, perhaps?

I guess where I'm going with this is that if they can make it work, it's the perfect plausible deniability weapon. A Hellfire missile hits something, people know where to go to ask about it. A bullet is a bit more anonymous, properly designed.
posted by SaintCynr at 1:27 PM on June 2, 2008

Heh.

this is pretty funny, given the lack of details neccessary to pull it off (Identifying Friend or Foe, Adaptive optics for differing air densities etc.) The military is always looking for the impressive kill, Shock and Awe nonsense. The dream is to kill the bad guy only as he stands chatting with his friends, current plans are indeed a Laser based weapon to candle-ize him. Flying sniper seems a little weak by comparison. Even the mockup with the turbofan prop and the gun snout is laughable, no elegance and bullets don't neccessarily stop in their targets...

Yeah, i work in the industry.
posted by djrock3k at 1:30 PM on June 2, 2008

If it can't hover motionlessly, what good is a sniper rifle?

And if we have gee-whizzy auto-aiming technology that obviates the need for hovering motionlessly, why aren't we building it into existing UAVs?

And where's my gun that shoots tasty sandwiches? I'd totally aim one of those at my face right now.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 1:36 PM on June 2, 2008

Reminds me of Chevy Chase and Gregory Hines.
posted by tadellin at 1:36 PM on June 2, 2008

TOCT, at issue here is not the individual responsible and his personal web developing skills, its the lack of professionalism that this conveys. Im decent with web design, but I am more of an operations guy. If I wanted to get into the business of unmanned gun things, Id do the smart thing and hire someone to develop proper prototypes, a lawyer to prepare the paperwork, a marketing person to create all the marketing materials and a web developer to do the site. I wouldnt try to do it myself, ESPECIALLY when Im trying to appear professional and generate interest in my projects...
posted by subaruwrx at 1:50 PM on June 2, 2008

And there's this.
posted by joaquim at 1:54 PM on June 2, 2008

They shoudl talk to the Metalstorm guys, those guys are like the experts at military vapourwear presentation.
posted by Artw at 1:58 PM on June 2, 2008

But Metalstorm fires at a million rounds-per-minute. Even as vaporware, it's still more dangerous and scary than this.

I understand the want, hell I could almost say that understand the need, but 1.) as a nose mounted weapon that can't hover? It's not going to work very well unless it can strafe, and 2.) once they finally get them perfected, these are going to be great when the revolution comes.

For both sides.
posted by quin at 2:22 PM on June 2, 2008

I think, from working in similar though non-weapons contexts, that the people they care about being considered professional by will consider them professional, and your definition of professionalism would label "unprofessional" sundry people and organizations I know to be professionally respected and even award-winning. Much of the business will be conducted over telephone, e-mail, and lengthy PDF/Word documents - the website isn't very important and they could probably even do business without it if they cared to. Meanwhile, except for the inappropriately scaled picture, it communicates just fine. While you're getting the marketer to make the shiny brochures and getting a web developer to make the shiny website, these guys would be getting themselves to make the shiny flying sniper rifle. You're not talking about professionalism, you're concerned about polish.

Actually, the fact that they have small but concrete examples of progress in their white paper and a plain website personally gives me a lot more feeling they have something more than bullshit than if they had nice renderings and a fancy website.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:26 PM on June 2, 2008

Correction. It's a nonexistent unmanned flying gun, based on technology that hasn't actually been invented yet.
...
It's about as real as a lightsaber.
posted by dersins at 2:48 PM on June 2 [+] [!]

Quoted for truth.

Just left a job where we were developing smart targeting for manned weapons: the XM-29 OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon). We couldn't come close to producing real-time target recognition for the human operator to sift through, without the power supplies only found on large vehicles and stationary generators. (Note that the last update on that link is dated 2005; the program fizzled out like a wet match. The numerous reasons why it failed would take an entire FPP to go through...)

A remotely-controlled video drone, or far worse, an automated drone, is no where near possible.

As an aside, I read a news article, just before the Iraq invasion, in which the reporter claimed to have seen special forces leaving the base in the middle of night, headed for Iraq - before we were officially at war. So far, very plausible. That's actually what they're for - preemptive reconn, intel, and point-precision missions with deniability. He then went on to describe in great detail the new weapons they were carrying, and it read like a marketing piece for the XM29 OICW. Clearly, that's what he was describing. The problem? There were only two in existence at that time; one was broken, and the other was in test in Wisconsin. So, what did he really see? As far as I can tell, nothing at all. He just mindlessly repeated the copy he was given by the officers in his embedded position.

Yay for the independent press.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:29 PM on June 2, 2008 [3 favorites]

OICW was cancelled wasn't it? To the disapointment of many videogames manufacturers.
posted by Artw at 2:35 PM on June 2, 2008

No, it just had its funding cut back by an order of 1,000 per year or more... from 5,000 per year.

But it's still "alive".
posted by IAmBroom at 2:41 PM on June 2, 2008

I read the post as, "It's an unnamed, flying nun."

Actually... me too. You know what would be cool? A flying nun with a gun.

The numerous reasons why [the XM29 OICW] failed would take an entire FPP to go through...

That is a FPP I'd totally... read. Again and again. And follow religiously.
posted by WalterMitty at 3:52 PM on June 2, 2008

Aha. It was the XM-8, the G36 based assault rfle component, that was flat-out cancelled. I suspect convincing the US Military to buy an assault rifel manufactured by another country was always going to be an uphill strugle.
posted by Artw at 4:10 PM on June 2, 2008

I'd be curious to see a rise-and-fall-of OICW post, FWIW.
posted by Artw at 4:15 PM on June 2, 2008

God I'd hope they design something better than that XM-29. I'd hate to have to carry that bulky XM-29 for any distance (or use it for close quarters stuff). I wish they'd just go to the 6.8mm bullet in a gas-piston HK416 type gun...or the FN SCAR.

I didn't think of Real Genius first--I thought of Vinge's book "True Names" with its Finger of God satellite system.
posted by whatgorilla at 5:06 PM on June 2, 2008

A remotely-controlled video drone, or far worse, an automated drone, is no where near possible.

I assume you're including some other qualifications as there are quite a few remotely controlled drones, some serving in combat now.

Without doubt there are some real engineering challenges to be solved for something like this to work efficiently but the bulk of the difficulty is likely already solved by other UAVs.

The nose-mounted gun actually makes a lot of sense. The idea as I understand it is that you have a dozen or so of these loitering in an area. A larger, more capable UAV like a Predator or a Global Hawk sees something, the ground command can tell by triangulation exactly where on the ground the "something" is and they can get (one hopes) a sufficiently good look at it to determine that it does, indeed, need to be shot. They then dispatch a sniper drone to come around and fly in in the direction of the shot. At a low, fuel-conserving airspeed the distance spent lining up the shot and taking it is miniscule so a down-the-nose gun makes no real difference and the time to get in position is mitigated by having dozens of the things. Bearing in mind that a drone would have instant GPS, insanely precise optics, automatic compensation for wind and only need to aim the gun the few degrees difference between the flight path and the bullet path and I have no trouble believing that it could handily out-shoot any human ever born.

There's still a human in the loop, the military is just as paranoid about robots gone wild as we are. All you're doing is de-coupling the act of sniping from the physical need of being a sniper.
posted by Skorgu at 5:48 PM on June 2, 2008

Artw : Aha. It was the XM-8, the G36 based assault rfle component, that was flat-out cancelled.

I hated that thing. Normally I'm a huge fan of H&K designs, but it was so freaking ugly with that curved handle, and swept back pistol grip. it was like a really shitty sci-fi prop. The G-36, while functionally very similar, at least has some normal aesthetics.

I suspect convincing the US Military to buy an assault rifel manufactured by another country was always going to be an uphill strugle.

They were planning on building a plant in Georgia for exactly this reason. Not sure if it ever got built though. But considering how popular their guns have gotten with military and law enforcement, I wouldn't be all that surprised if it did open.
posted by quin at 6:20 PM on June 2, 2008

I guess where I'm going with this is that if they can make it work, it's the perfect plausible deniability weapon. A Hellfire missile hits something, people know where to go to ask about it. A bullet is a bit more anonymous, properly designed.

Sniper rifles good to 1500m or more usually use .50 Caliber ammunition. So, there wouldn't be much plausibility in any denial that would be attempted. There doesn't have to be, of course, you just need a complicit and/or complacent media..
posted by Chuckles at 7:33 PM on June 2, 2008

previously.
posted by tmcw at 9:08 PM on June 2, 2008

This looks like the gun to have though. I mean, it comes with skis, who can resist a gun with skis?
posted by Artw at 11:26 PM on June 2, 2008

Re: the website design issue: I'm often surprised at what kind of crappy or at least non-informative websites fairly big players put up in the defence industry. I.e. this billion dollar selling product which has a five-point bullet list and a one-page PDF on the web. I guess national military procurement departments don't surf the web randomly looking for good deals.
posted by Harald74 at 12:35 AM on June 3, 2008

Artw, as I recall the Lahti 20mm anti-tank rifle you link to was the weapon used in the original crime that the 1974 Clint Eastwood film Thunderbolt and Lightfoot was a fictional dramatization of.
posted by steveburnett at 1:12 PM on June 3, 2008

God I'd hope they design something better than that XM-29. I'd hate to have to carry that bulky XM-29 for any distance (or use it for close quarters stuff). I wish they'd just go to the 6.8mm bullet in a gas-piston HK416 type gun...or the FN SCAR.
posted by whatgorilla at 8:06 PM on June 2 [+] [!]

Word.

Weight was one of the nails in the coffin - the other was cost.

The background cause was two-fold: management by a regularly-changing series of mid-level officers (who were compelled to leave their mark on the system to create bullets on their resume - no pun intended), and "more/bigger=better" fetishism from those making the wish lists.

Every two years the program would mutate, adding complexity (and thus weight, time, and cost). Finally, the thing began to teeter.
posted by IAmBroom at 11:24 AM on June 4, 2008

They should just issue everyone with XM-307s and power assisted exoskeletons.
posted by Artw at 11:45 AM on June 4, 2008