U.S. Special Forces Set to Carry XM-25 Laser-Guided Smart-Bullet Weapon into Battle

reminds me of Zorg's ZF-1 with replay button... www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pxjnl1yuXk

Can you stop spamming this site, Pat.

Battlefield 2142 Voss lar with rocket launcher. Exactly the same thing

F**k these killing machines! Use the money to make something constructive.

A killing machine is constructive ass, any thing that kills those fucks quicker and better is very constructive

Very awesome! Don't you love people who don't understand where we get alot of our tech from? drum roll please.........the military. Like it or not, we will not get reasonable funding for projects unless there is something the military can benefit from....and, I don't oppose either.

I love this! This is long overdue. Most of our soldier upgrades seem to be more defensive, informational and logistic than offensive. As long as they don't try and make this unit a web centric device, I am all for it.

carlito sway@ dude i laughed so hard! i love that movie just proves scifi becomes reality!

Ba voi daca nu omorati pe cineva nu va simtiti bine?!?! Sau daca nu amenintati pe cineva?

Great. With the US the #1 arms dealer in the world, and almost half their clients being developing nations, this weapon will be in enemy hands in no time. I'm sure they'll all be very happy to know it's "game changing".

@dontbother – come on, I know you can articulate better than that, I like reading your witty comments. Calm down and write something clever and thought provoking.

And booom goes the dynomite!!!!!!!!!

$25K for the gun but how much are the rounds.

This is way too expensive.

It amazes me how much we will spend to kill one or two bad guys.

12,500 of them at $25,000 each is $312 million dollars.

That's the first order without ammo.

All to shoot through a window. Nice!

Normally im always react harsh about 'new developments' that arent actually that new especially with regards to aerospace/aviation. But this gun is an example of what we should be doing. The paradigm has shifted in the last 20 years from thinking up all this cool stuff and selling it to the army/navy/airforce - to working with them too closely and having it stifle creativity by just coming up with slightly better version to what they already have. We should be thinking up stuff like this buck rogers style and giving the troops in the field the best things to make their lives better - we gotta shift the paradigm back!

Voices1776, One or two? At last count there are about a billion of em'.

Voices1776 --- Okay genius, it's either 12,500 of them at $25,000 each plus ammo

Or 12,500 Hellfire missiles at $68,000 each plus the cost of an Apache helicopter, fuel, maintenance, etc...

Which do you think is the better deal when trying to hit the bad guy in a small building?

So, when does the private version come out.

I know some "hunting clubs" that NEED this gun to flush out "Bambi."

Has anyone tried just tossing money on the ground and shooting the "bad guys" when they come out to pick it up?

With what we are spending...it might be a cheaper solution.

This weapon is obscene. Will it be smart enough to recognize innocent people in a room? Haven't we killed enough Afghanis and Iraqis?

I would think its primary advantage would be to puncture a wall and turn into a frag grenade on the other side.

old school style tech still, stick a microchip inside and let the computer tell the bullet where to go..doesnt tell them who to kill though..doesnt say dont kill this one leave it alive cause its a hostage, or an innocent..but kill that one..doesnt tell the bullet to only kill within 5 metres or 1 metre, no sprays out in all directions...so dont make the soldier smarter..just make the machines smarter..doesnt sound smart to me

what i mean by old school tech also is, bullets??..how old is that tech? like the gasoline internal combustion engine..old school tech

Good job USA, instead of collecting your losses and leaving a war that should never have happened, you built this. But once the Afghan's manage to hijack one you will probably wish you did leave.
I doubt this is much of a game changer anyway, its just a more accurate grenade launcher. It's not gonna end any wars

Maine-iac
I am old fashioned so I wonder what will happen if the batteries quit in the middle of a firefight or if they are in a cold weather setting that saps batteries fast. Or perhaps cut off from resupply, with weapons in a firefight the KISS principle would be the best policy. This star-wars stuff is fine in a controlled setting but what happens in a firefight. Not to mention that they are computer controlled and we know that computers are not completely trustworthy.

This kind of BS is exactly what's killing our military. We don't need these fancypants weapons that are just a failure prone joke.

We need systems that work, are cheap, and effective. This thing isn't proven - it's expensive - it's a waste.

If hellfire missiles are $60,000 each - it's time to tell Boeing or whoever it is - their contract is now terminated until they cut the production cost by 50%.

We need to play hardball with these companies. Correct the market, we all win. More bang for our defense buck.

Not this kind of garbage.

Arch43 -- I'm pretty sure the power supply issue has been addressed, as the military would not order them if they were not up to milspec standards.

Kyanwan -- It's not simply about having fancy hi-tech weapons, it's about limiting the human collateral damage as a result of battle. No one says it's perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. I suppose for cheap and effective, you'd have our military using sticks and stones, swords and catapults? That crap doesn't win battles anymore.

What do you get when you go with the lowest bidder? You get weapons that are more failure prone due to lower quality materials. Why is everyone so against spending for DEFENSE of the majority of human lives? Sure, all of you naysayers will pay out the butt for home entertainment, cars, houses, etc... but don't want to spend a dime defending your lifestyles in the big picture.

So, is it open in the back, or is there a kick to it?

Is it a single shot, or does it hold several charges?

Is there any guidance involved in the system, or does the shooter just have to be a staight shot?

Maine-iac

I am old fashioned so I wonder what will happen if the batteries quit in the middle of a firefight or if they are in a cold weather setting that saps batteries fast. Or perhaps cut off from resupply, with weapons in a firefight the KISS principle would be the best policy.
************************
That's what they said about the repeater rifle. At Little Big Horn, the Indians had repeaters, and the soldiers had single shot rifles. That was to encourage the soldier to aim carefully and make his shots count, and to save ammunitions. Guess who won.

Likewise with the machine gun. It was considered to be wasteful of ammunition, but at San Juan Hill, when the Spaniards were hard to dislodge from their positions, when they brought up the Gatling gun, the Spanish dropped or fled.

Guess who won?

Setarip said:
"Very awesome! Don't you love people who don't understand where we get alot of our tech from? drum roll please.........the military. Like it or not, we will not get reasonable funding for projects unless there is something the military can benefit from....and, I don't oppose either."

So if we didn't have a military we would not have all the great tech we enjoy today? Does that even make sense? Military leaders are notoriously stupid people, I can count on one hand how many truly humane and brilliant military men there were in history and those were pushed out and ignored. I'm a veteran of the air force and I can say for sure that out of the 100's people I knew and worked with there are 2 maybe 3 I would still be in contact with if I could, I'm only in contact with one.

A lot of the civilian commercialized products we use today are not well tested to be safe, and because they are pushed out by military men turned business men I find it hard to trust them.

It's not good enough to say if it wasn't for the military we wouldn't have this or that. The point is we don't know, and another point is we will never know if it was really a benefit or the best solution, or that someone else had a better solution and a safer one but because of these military businessmen and their connections the better invention gets pushed out.

Guys like Dean Kamen and Woody Norris are forced to invent for the military to continue to fund their more humane projects because there's little money for innovation, but there's tons for destruction.

Without the military innovation would be more organic and ultimately humane.

@aeroseth

without the military, you wouldn't even be able to post your comment. Because the military invented the internet, you argument is invalid.

I'm kidding :P, but in all seriousness, innovation follows a very simple rule. necessity is the mother of invention. and guess who needs invention? the military.

our soldiers do actually NEED this weapon. according to field results, this weapon brought down engagements from 20 minutes to 5. the enemy cant hide, and can't run from this grenade launcher.

this weapon makes our soldiers smarter in the sense that they are more accurate, because they are currently using air strikes, artillery, and dumb rocket launchers that are more expensive and far more capable of collateral damage then this weapon.

as America we are absolutely Chuck Norris level Famous for trying our very best not to kill civilians, and completely evaporate our enemies. terrorists understand this very well, they only need to look at their very dead buddies to understand this simple ROE. so they like to hide near civilians when they can so we wont bomb them and everyone else. when this doesnt work they simply hide, so in the end, they prolong firefights and raise the risk level for our brothers out in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

the XM25 a very simple solution to the above problem. it basically tells the enemy "Go ahead and hide, its easier to kill you when you aren't shooting back :P"